mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
65ebd96bcf591295084e9ee3d7ee417cea66f4b4
2780
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
65ebd96bcf |
fix(chat): keep the person's brief as a document on a new case's primary task (#20954)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - With Cases enabled, a person can ask chat to open a case from a
brief and hand it to an agent
> - The case scenario expects the brief and a workflow document on the
primary task before work starts
> - In one run the CEO copied the brief's facts into case fields but
saved only the workflow document
> - The Cases chat guidance says nothing about where the person's brief
belongs
> - This pull request adds one guidance sentence: save the brief with
`initialDocuments` in the same case-handoff request
> - The benefit is that the assignee always has the person's source,
saved before its run begins
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval `cases.create-case` (run 43107042937), the person
attached a customer bug brief and asked the CEO to open a case and have
Morgan investigate. The CEO created the case, its fields, the workflow
document and the kickoff. It did not save the brief on the primary task.
In an earlier run (43101125481) the CEO did save it, so the behavior
depends on the model's choice.
**Expected behavior**
The new primary task has the person's brief as a document, saved in the
request that creates it, before the assignee starts.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable Cases. Attach a brief in chat with the CEO.
2. Ask: "Open a case for this customer bug, record the facts from my
brief, and have Morgan investigate first."
3. Read the primary task's documents: in some runs only `workflow`
exists.
## What Changed
- `CASES_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` (rendered only while Cases is enabled): one
sentence. When the person opens a case from a brief, save the brief as a
document on the primary task with `initialDocuments` on `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/case-handoffs`. Case fields do not replace
the brief.
- `case-history-api-discovery.test.ts`: a regression test for the new
guidance.
## Verification
- Red: the new test failed before the change. Green: `npx vitest run
src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` (67 passed).
- The route already accepts `initialDocuments` for a newly created
primary task (`packages/shared/src/case-handoffs.ts`).
- End-to-end: chat eval run linked in a comment below.
## Risks
- Low risk. The sentence renders only when Cases is enabled. No API or
permission changes.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6cfb1f3d87 |
fix(environments): resume a warm sandbox that its finished predecessor is still releasing (#20953)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A warm Paperclip Runner session keeps its Daytona sandbox between runs. The next run of the same task resumes that sandbox through a `reuse_by_environment` lease. > - Acquisition only resumes a lease that is `released`, `retained`, or held by the same run. A finished run releases its lease only after it saves its instruction and workspace files, which takes several seconds. > - A board wake that arrives in that window does not see the warm lease. It creates a fresh sandbox. The session's durable backup cannot be restored there, because its source lease is still held. The run fails with `native_session_recovery_failed: runner_harness_state_mismatch: backup_without_reusable_lease` and the task needs Retry, which starts a new provider session. > - This pull request makes acquisition wait, for a short bounded time, for a lease that a recently finished predecessor is still releasing, and then resume it. > - The benefit is that the follow-up continues the same warm session in the same sandbox, with no Retry, no restore and no lost provider context. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Restart-chaos wave `w-20261111T205259-s6301` (Codex, Daytona warm, volume-free server, `--ephemeral-server` from #20930), task t01. The board re-wake run `e7129ec7` started at 20:57:44. Its predecessor `5cf8c306` reported `run.terminal` at 20:57:38 but saved its instruction copy until 20:57:51, so its warm lease was still `active`. At 20:57:53 the new run recorded `startup reuse: environment (fresh)`. It then failed with `runner_harness_state_mismatch: backup_without_reusable_lease` (error code `native_session_interrupted`). Recording the `workspace_finalize` operation then failed with a Postgres deadlock, and the run settled `native_finalization_missing`. Retry run `79aa18ec` worked with a fresh provider session. The K1 restart in that wave was at 20:55:32 and is not the cause: six warm runs after it reused the sandbox normally. **Root cause** `reusableLeaseCanBeResumed` in `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts` excludes an `active` lease held by another run. That rule is correct for a running predecessor. For a predecessor that has already ended, the `active` state is a short release tail. The new run creates a sandbox, and `retiredSourceAuthorizesNativeBackupRestore` (`native-retired-backup-source.ts`) correctly refuses to restore the backup from a source lease that is not yet `released` or `retained` (`idleWarmSourceRetiresBackup`). The executor's last branch (`native-session-executor.ts`, host preparation, created allocation) then throws `backup_without_reusable_lease`. **How often** Seen in 2 of 361 retained wave result directories on this machine (`s6301` today, `s5201` earlier). It needs a board wake within a few seconds of the predecessor's terminal event, so it is timing dependent. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts`: add `waitForSettlingReusableLease`. Before the plugin and built-in sandbox paths select a reusable lease, acquisition polls (250 ms) for up to 20 s while a matching `reuse_by_environment` lease is `active` under a different run that is `succeeded`, `failed`, `cancelled` or `timed_out` and finished in the last two minutes. It then continues with the normal selection, which resumes the released lease. - A running predecessor causes no wait (unchanged: the new run gets a new sandbox). A predecessor that ended more than two minutes ago and never released causes no wait. - `server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts`: two red/green cases (succeeded and failed predecessor release the lease 400 ms after the successor starts acquiring) and one case for an old unreleased lease (no wait, new sandbox, old lease untouched). - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: describe the wait next to the existing warm-reuse rules. ## Verification - Red on master: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts -t predecessor` fails both cases with `expected 'warm-2' to be 'warm-1'`: the successor created a second sandbox instead of resuming the first. - Green: the same command passes (3 tests). `environment-runtime.test.ts`, `plugin-warm-tasks.integration.test.ts` and `environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts` pass (288 tests). Server `tsc --noEmit` passes. - Not verified in a chaos wave. The window is a few seconds wide and appeared in 2 of 361 waves, so one wave cannot show the change. ## Risks - A successor can start up to 20 s later when its predecessor's release is slow. Creating a sandbox and restoring a backup takes longer, and failing needs a Retry. The two-minute bound keeps a stuck, never-released lease from delaying every later run. - If a caller held a lock that the predecessor's release needs, the wait ends at 20 s and acquisition behaves as before. - Compared with #20863 (fresh-sandbox fallback) and #20811 (unsaved provider state marker): this change does not alter either. It reduces how often a warm continuation reaches the fresh-sandbox branch. The backup restore proof is unchanged, so an unproven backup still fails closed with a working Retry. - The `workspace_finalize` deadlock in the same run is a separate defect and is not fixed here. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, test runs). Default context window, extended reasoning on. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2719145ae2 |
fix(chat): save a requested start order as a first-class blocker (#20947)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People use chat to tell the CEO agent how work must be ordered
> - A person said "Do not start the website until the design is
approved"
> - The CEO only promised to hold the work. It did not save a blocker,
so nothing stopped the Website task
> - Chat guidance names blockers only when chat creates new tasks. It
says nothing about an order between existing tasks
> - This pull request adds one guidance line: save the order as a
blocker on the waiting task
> - The benefit is that Paperclip enforces the order and wakes the
assignee when the prerequisite is done
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval `task-coordination.block-on-design` (run 43088288923),
the person asked the CEO to keep Website from starting until Design is
approved. The CEO read both tasks and replied "I'm holding both until
the design is actually approved". It saved no blocker. Website stayed
startable.
**Expected behavior**
The CEO adds Design to Website's `blockedByIssueIds`. Website cannot
start while Design is open. Its assignee wakes when Design is done.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create Design and Website tasks in backlog. Assign Website to an
agent.
2. In chat with the CEO, say "Do not start the website until the design
is approved."
3. Read Website: `blockedBy` is empty in some runs, because the guidance
does not tell the agent to save the order.
## What Changed
- `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`: one paragraph. When the person says an
existing task must not start until another is done or approved, add the
prerequisite to the waiting task's `blockedByIssueIds` with `PATCH
/api/issues/{id}`, and keep existing blockers. A comment or a promise
does not stop the work. Link both tasks.
- `agent-conversations.test.ts`: a regression test for the new guidance,
in the directive and in the rendered chat prompt.
## Verification
- Red: the new test failed before the guidance change.
- Green: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts` (66 passed).
- Local scripted-human check (dev server, Playwright): with the blocker
saved, the Website task shows the Design row under "Blocked by", a Todo
click returns 200 without a Morgan run, Design done wakes Morgan with
`issue_blockers_resolved`, and the follow-up chat message sends.
- End-to-end: chat eval run linked in a comment below.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change adds about 470 characters to the chat prompt. It
changes no API or permission. The route and field already exist and
agents already use them.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
612cc7e3e6 |
fix(heartbeat): renew every legacy controller lease in one shared statement (#20924)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A legacy run holds a durable controller lease while it prepares. The server renews the lease every 10 seconds, and it stops the run if no renewal succeeds within the 60 second lease. > - Each run renewed in its own transaction on a private pool of two connections. Each renewal used six round trips (begin, statement timeout, transaction id, notify, update, commit) and woke live-run recovery for that run. > - When many runs prepare at the same time on a loaded database, the renewals queue behind each other. The queue grows with the number of runs, and every run loses its lease at about the same time. > - A healthy server must not fail its own runs because it has many of them. > - This pull request renews all leases of one server process through one shared queue. Requests that arrive while a renewal is in flight share the next statement. > - The benefit is that the renewal cost no longer grows with the number of live runs, so a burst cannot starve the lease. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On a staging server that did not restart, 22 runs failed with `controller_lease_lost` in about 13 minutes. Every run was a legacy run in the `preparing` stage with `providerWorkStarted: false`. Every loss had cause `renewal_deadline`. The renewal had been pending 28 to 48 seconds (`renewalPendingMs`). The deadline callback ran on time (`deadlineLateMs` 3 to 861 ms), so the event loop was not blocked. The successful renewals before the loss had each taken 20 to 30 seconds, because the deadline fired only 25 to 48 seconds after the last renewal (`sinceRenewalMs`). About 30 runs were live in the process. The first wave started when a user retried about 14 blocked tasks at once. The automatic retries of the first wave then failed the same way, which made the second wave. 12 of 16 affected tasks became blocked. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start about 30 legacy runs in one server process. 2. Make each renewal transaction slow (for example, a loaded database). 3. Wait one lease period. **Expected behavior** The leases stay owned. The renewal cost does not grow with the number of runs. **Actual behavior** All runs fail with `controller_lease_lost` (`renewal_deadline`). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/legacy-controller-lease.ts`: All controllers of one process renew through one queue per database. One flush is in flight at a time. Requests that arrive during a flush share the next flush, so a renewal waits behind at most one other statement. A flush is one transaction on the private lease pool: `statement_timeout` and one statement that renews all requested rows. - The statement locks the requested rows with `for update skip locked`. A row that another transaction holds is reported busy, and only that run retries after 250 ms. It does not stall the other runs in the batch. A row that is not this boot's live legacy lease is reported rejected, as before. - Renewal no longer emits the `active-execution-recovery` notification. A renewal only moves the deadline later. Recovery already has a deadline at the earlier expiry and rereads the moved deadline then. This removes one recovery pass, `pg_current_xact_id` and `pg_notify` per renewal. - The lease contract does not change: 60 second lease, 10 second renewal, boot-id fence, expired leases cannot renew, the local deadline is measured from the attempt start, and the loss causes and timings are the same. - `doc/run-log-events.md`: Documents the shared renewal queue. Upgrade story: no persisted shape changes. The row columns, lease length and boot-id fence are the same. A lease held by the previous release has a different boot id, so the new batch rejects it and leaves it untouched. A test covers a previous-release lease in the same batch. ## Verification - Red on `origin/master`, green with this change: - `keeps thirty preparing controllers owned when every renewal takes four seconds on a two-connection pool`: before, all 30 controllers lost the lease with `renewal_deadline` (the staging shape). After, none lose it. - `renews fifteen concurrent controllers in one statement` (real Postgres): before, 15 update statements. After, 1. - `renews through one private statement without waking live-run recovery`: before, the renewal woke `active-execution-recovery`. After, it does not. - `live-recovery-work.test.ts` `renews without waking recovery and re-reads the moved controller deadline at the old one`: before, 2 recovery passes per renewal. After, none, and recovery still moves to the new deadline at the old one. - Safety cases: a row lock on one run does not delay another run; a previous-release lease in the same batch stays untouched; a terminated lease connection is retried; existing deadline, retry, rejection and revocation tests pass. - `npx vitest run src/services/legacy-controller-lease.test.ts src/__tests__/live-recovery-work.test.ts`: 88 passed. - `pnpm verify`: see the CI checks on this head. ## Risks - Medium-low. All renewals of a process now share one statement. A failed flush fails every request in it; each watcher retries independently, as it did before. - A busy row is retried every 250 ms until the lease deadline. Before, the renewal waited on the row lock for up to the statement timeout. The loss behavior is the same. - Recovery wakes at the old lease expiry instead of after each renewal. It finds the live lease and moves to the new expiry. - Not in scope: the downstream workspace recovery that blocked tasks after a lost lease (`legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation`, `source_unavailable`). > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
228b0169be |
fix(dispatch): let the answer to the agent's own question continue the task it blocked on (#20931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - An agent can ask the person a question (`request_human_input`) and wait for the answer > - A later comment from the person moves an open question into history (#15392). The agent still needs the answer, so it reports a blocker and the task becomes Blocked > - The person then answers. Dispatch cancels the answer's continuation with `issue_not_in_progress`, because only a dependency-blocked task may take an answer while Blocked > - The task rests Blocked with a failed run and a Retry. The answer is lost until a person clicks Retry > - This pull request lets the answer continue the task when the same agent blocked it to wait for that answer, proven from durable records > - The benefit is that the person's answer always reaches the agent that asked, without a Retry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15392, Refs #20872 **What happened?** Restart-chaos waves with no fault injected fail every W2Q task on every provider (Claude, OpenCode, Codex) with `R3:retry_needed`. For Claude task t03 on master |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
edd00526e7 |
fix(native): park a response_wake with no admitted response instead of self-waking (#20935)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A native agent run ends with a structured result. The status arbiter
turns that result into an issue status and next actions.
> - A result can report `yielded` with `continuation.kind:
"response_wake"`. This means "wake me when somebody responds".
> - Only a direct Board comment gave this kind a passive wait. Every
other `response_wake` became an immediate `issue_status_changed` wake to
the same agent.
> - The agent woke, saw nothing new, reported `response_wake` again, and
woke again. Nothing bounded this loop. It spent provider budget and its
back-to-back runs caused other failures on warm sandboxes.
> - This pull request parks such a result as a visible wait, and puts
declared continuation wakes under the rewake throttle as a backstop.
> - The benefit is that an agent that waits for input stops and costs
nothing until a real response arrives.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Restart-chaos waves on master `683fd1e9a5` (no faults injected) showed
one task run 30 to 66 times, about 12 s apart. Example: wave
`w-20261111T190352-s5101`, task t02 (W2C), 65 runs in 13 minutes. Each
run reported `yielded` with `continuation.kind: "response_wake"` and the
summary "No changes made. This status-change wake does not trigger phase
2". Each run was woken by `issue_status_changed`, and each finalization
committed `live_continuation_registered` with an `enqueue_continuation`
effect of kind `response_wake`.
Root cause: `arbitrateNativeStatus()`
(`server/src/services/native-runtime/status-arbiter.ts`) only treats
`response_wake` as passive when `boardResponseWaitAuthorized` (from
`readNativeBoardResponseWaitSource`), external chat, or plan wait is
true. Otherwise it falls to the generic yielded branch, and
`status-decision-committer.ts` (`enqueue_continuation`) enqueues an
`issue_status_changed` wake to the same agent. `issue_status_changed` is
not in `THROTTLED_ISSUE_REWAKE_REASONS`, and the native committer writes
an `issue.updated` activity row with the run's id for every decision, so
the rewake throttle saw every native run as progress.
**Expected behavior**
A `response_wake` with no admitted response source parks the task. A
comment, an interaction answer or a status change by somebody else wakes
the agent. No path can loop without a bound.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run `tests/restart-chaos/main.ts --env local --adapters codex
--workloads W2,W2Q,W2C --concurrency 10 --tasks 10 --seed 5101
--lifecycle warm --triggers time`. W2/W2C tasks loop after phase 1.
## What Changed
- `status-arbiter.ts`: a `yielded` / `response_wake` result with no
admitted response source and no blocking remaining work now commits
`response_wake_waiting_for_input`, keeps the task `in_progress`, and has
no effects. Policy version is `phase6-v14`. Board, external chat, plan,
governance, dependency, pause and unfinished-work branches are unchanged
and still come first.
- `native-runtime/native-response-wake-wait.ts` (new) and
`recovery/service.ts`: recovery treats that applied decision as a
durable wait while it is the issue's latest decision, the issue is
`in_progress` with the same agent assignee, and no user comment arrived
after the run started. This applies to the stranded-work sweep and to
the paused-agent passive-wait check.
- `execution-projection.ts`: a committed run with this reason shows the
phase `waiting_for_answer`, label "Waiting for a reply", and a next
action that tells the user to comment or change the status. This shows
only while that decision is still the issue's latest decision and the
issue is `in_progress`; an older run shows "Completed".
- Backstop in `issue-rewake-throttle.ts` and `heartbeat/queue.ts`: an
`issue_status_changed` wake that carries a declared `continuationKind`
(the `enqueue_continuation` effect) is now a throttle candidate. The
native status committer's own `issue.updated` / status-decision activity
no longer counts as run progress or as new input. After two consecutive
successful runs with no issue-visible progress, such a wake waits for
the existing escalating cooldown (2 min, doubling, max 30 min). The
native status dispatcher (`dispatchNativeStatusWakeBatch`) does not drop
a throttled intent: it keeps the intent `queued`, reports the cooldown
deadline to the deferred-receipt worker, and dispatches it again when
the cooldown ends. Status wakes without a declared continuation (blocker
owner, notify owner, retry) are unchanged.
- Restart chaos: new enforced universal check U5 (`universal.ts`). A
task with more than 10 runs fails as `U5:run_budget_exceeded`
(`RESTART_CHAOS_U5_MAX_RUNS`). The README records the calibration.
- `doc/architecture/native-status-arbitration.md`: the decision table
and the wait rules.
## Verification
- RED on master (same reason as the waves):
`heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` "parks a native response_wake that
no response admitted…" fails with decision `reasonCode:
"live_continuation_registered"` and effect `{ kind:
"enqueue_continuation", continuationKind: "response_wake" }`.
`heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` "throttles a
same_agent/response_wake/retry continuation…" fails 3/3 because the wake
is admitted.
- GREEN: the integration test finalizes the run, dispatches native
status wakes and runs the stranded-work sweep three times. It asserts
one run total, one wake request, no recovery action, the task
`in_progress`, and the projection "Waiting for a reply".
- `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` "delays a no-progress native
continuation until the rewake cooldown…" finalizes a real `same_agent`
continuation after a no-progress run, dispatches twice (one throttle
receipt, intent stays `queued`, deadline equals `nextAllowedAt`), then
dispatches after the cooldown and gets the run. It fails when the
dispatcher drops the throttled intent.
- Focused suites pass: `heartbeat-process-recovery`,
`heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle`, `status-arbiter`,
`native-status-arbiter-corpus`, `runtime-mode`, `execution-projection`,
`chat-run-milestone-work`, `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling`,
`heartbeat-run-summary` (904 tests), and all restart-chaos unit tests
(584 tests). `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes.
- Universal audit over the 17 saved waves of 2026-11-11: U5 flags 12
tasks, all looping tasks (12 to 66 runs), and 0 tasks on all-pass waves.
- Chaos rerun of local warm seed 5101 (W2, W2Q, W2C): result is added in
a comment on this PR.
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: a model that reports `response_wake` to mean
"continue now" no longer gets an immediate run. The task waits visibly
for a reply. The runner prompt already describes `response_wake` as a
real response wait, and `same_agent` stays available for server-owned
continuations.
- The throttle now applies to native runs. A chain of declared
continuations with no issue-visible output (no comment, document, work
product or other activity) waits for the cooldown after the second such
run. `same_agent` continuations are server-owned (repository
preparation), so this affects only repeated no-output chains.
- Old saved state: decisions committed under `phase6-v13` keep their
recorded effects. A run that finalizes after deploy uses the new policy.
No migration.
- Budget hard-stop behavior is unchanged.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits, test runs).
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
b2779054d4 |
fix(issues): let a native run hand its own task to a person without cancelling itself (#20884)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task has one assignee. An agent often finishes its work by handing its own task to a person for review. > - The task update route stops the outgoing run before it saves a reassignment. > - Since #16082, a legacy run that hands its own task to a person is exempt, so it finishes its turn. Native runs were not exempt. > - On staging, a native run (ACPX Claude, 11.5 minutes of work) sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` to hand its task to a person. The route cancelled that run with `issue_reassigned`. The agent saw `api_transport_failure`. The task moved to the person, but it kept a stale execution blocker ("Saved work recovered. Send a message to continue."). > - The native runtime assumes a running run still owns its task. So widening the exemption alone is not enough: the run then fails after its result is accepted, and its finalizer can act on the person's task. > - This pull request applies the exemption to native runs and makes the native terminal fence, restart recovery and finalizer handle a run that gave its task away. > - The benefit is that an agent can hand its task to a person and finish normally, with no blocker on the person's task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16082 (legacy exemption). Related: #20541 (agent-to-agent self handoff) and #18293 (agent key handoff). Those PRs cover other actors and targets. This PR covers native runs that hand their task to a person. **What happened?** A native agent run handed its own task to a person (`assigneeAgentId: null`, `assigneeUserId`, status `in_review`) through its signed run token. The route cancelled the run that sent the request (`issue_reassigned`, "Cancelled before issue reassignment"). The cancelled native run then went through workspace recovery. The person's task kept an execution blocker with `restore_failed`. **Expected behavior** The run that hands its own task to a person keeps running and finishes its turn. The task rests `in_review` with the person. No execution blocker or recovery action stays on the task. The outgoing run cannot change the task after the hand-off. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native agent on its assigned task. 2. From that run, send `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` with `assigneeAgentId: null`, a person's `assigneeUserId`, and status `in_review`. 3. Before this fix, the route cancels the run with `issue_reassigned`. **Why the exemption was legacy-only** #16082 limited the exemption to the run shape of its incident and kept a verified stop for every other case. The new H2 chaos workload showed why native needed more than the route change. With only the route widened: 1. The run's terminal fence `assertCurrentWakeCommentsRead` requires the run to still own the task. It threw `native_current_wake_comments_binding_changed` after the result was accepted. The run then failed with `native_session_lease_lost`, and its finalizer recorded `workspace_finalization_failed` as an agent-owned recovery on the person's task. 2. A restart after the hand-off left the run `running`, because restart recovery refused it with `issue_execution_lock_changed`. 3. The native finalizer only superseded a `done` decision. A `needs_review` report moved the person's task back to `in_progress` and queued a continuation for the outgoing agent. 4. The REST guard against the outgoing run's later mutations (`issue_handed_off`) applied to legacy runs only. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the signed current-run human self-handoff exemption now applies to native runs. All other checks stay: exact run, agent, company and task, `agent_jwt` source, human recipient. For a native run the route first records the hand-off on the run (`resultJson.humanSelfHandoff`, new `native-human-self-handoff.ts`). Board reassignment, agent keys, and handoffs to an agent or to nobody still stop the outgoing run. - `current-wake-comments.ts`: the terminal fence accepts a run whose recorded hand-off matches the person who now owns the task. Without the record (for example a board reassignment), or after a later reassignment, it still refuses. - `native-restart-recovery.ts`: after a restart, a handed-off run is not resumed. It passes the execution-lock check and is then settled by the existing ownership gate (`task_ownership_or_status_changed`) without changing the person's task, instead of staying `running`. - `status-arbiter.ts` and `native-run-finalizer.ts`: `supersedeHandedOffDecision` keeps the person's task status and strips retries, continuations, owner wakes, recoveries, blockers and reviewer bindings, also from decisions that already preserve the status. Two effects stay: a governed request's interaction, and the workspace-finalization repair, so saved work is not lost. Review runs are not affected. - `server/src/run-task-ownership.ts` (renamed from `legacy-run-task-ownership.ts`): `assertHandedOffRunTaskOwnership` rejects later task mutations from the outgoing legacy or native run, in the route and under the update transaction's locks. - `tests/restart-chaos/`: new opt-in workload `H2`. The agent saves a brief, then hands the task to its creator in review as its last step. The oracle requires the task to rest `in_review` with the creator, every run to settle without `issue_reassigned`, readable non-empty run history, and no execution blocker or active recovery action. - Docs: `doc/execution-semantics.md`, task feature map and agent access map, chaos README. ## Verification - Red on `origin/master` (same tests, master source): the route cancels the native run (500, and 409 `runner_goal_reassignment_stop_unconfirmed`); the finalizer moves the person's task to `in_progress` with a continuation for the outgoing agent; a late `done` from the outgoing native run closes the person's task. - Red chaos wave on master's server (`--server-from` a master checkout, `--adapters claude --workloads H2 --faults K1 --matrix`): 0/2 pass. Both runs ended `cancelled` / `issue_reassigned` (`T:handoff_did_not_cancel_run`). - Green focused tests on this branch: - `native-human-self-handoff.test.ts` (embedded Postgres): hand-off through the real issue service; the run stays `running`; `done`, `needs_review` and failed-turn reports leave the task `in_review` with the person, with `getExecutionBlocker` null and no recovery action; the terminal fence accepts only the recorded hand-off; a late change from the outgoing run fails with `issue_handed_off`; pure policy cases. - `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`: native and legacy self-handoffs persist without `cancelRun`, and native records the hand-off before the update. Board, agent key, other run, task, agent and company still stop the run. - Native runtime suite (restart recovery, wake comments, arbiter, stale-owner completion), `issues-service`, `low-trust-red-team-routes`: pass. Server and restart-chaos typecheck pass. `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes. - Green chaos waves on this branch (local, `--adapters claude --workloads H2`): - `--matrix --faults K1 --seed 4459`: 2/2 pass (K0 baseline and a K1 crossing). - `--tasks 3 --faults K1 --fault-after-seconds 60` and `--fault-after-seconds 100`: 3/3 pass each. In the first, all three restarts landed after the hand-off while the runs were live; the runs settled and the tasks stayed with the person. - The final waves ran on the pre-rebase head `8a2a3b6a74`. The rebase onto master only merged the chaos workload lists (`types.ts`, `config.ts`, `journeys.ts`). No Daytona wave was run. ## Risks - The outgoing native turn keeps running after the person owns the task. Its native task tools already require the run to own the task, so they refuse (`paperclip_runner_tool_binding_not_authorized`). Its REST mutations are rejected with `issue_handed_off`. - A restart after the hand-off settles the run as failed (`native_restart_recovery_blocked`) instead of resuming it. The person's task is not changed and needs no Retry. - The finalizer rule covers any native run whose task belongs to a person at finalization, not only a self-handoff. Before this change such a run could still move the person's task and queue its own continuation. - Saved state: `resultJson.humanSelfHandoff` is a new optional run key. An older server ignores it, so a run handed off on the new server and finished on an old one fails its fence as today. No schema change. - No API shape change. > 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 - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, through Claude Code with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose the context window or reasoning mode. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7cd5558e41 |
fix(authz): send agents denied a cost-recording route to the Costs page (#20922)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent is denied a board-only action, the denial names the
board page where a person can do it, and agents relay that link
> - Cost recording retry ("Retry cost recording") is board-only and
lives on the run's row on the Costs page
> - The denial for every `/companies/:id/costs` route named the Budgets
page instead
> - So an agent asked to fix a run's missing cost sent the person to
Budgets, where the control does not exist
> - This pull request maps cost routes to the Costs page and names that
page in the retry route's catalog entry
> - The benefit is that the person lands on the control the agent told
them to use
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In paid chat eval run 43086418488
(`budgets-costs.repair-cost-recording`), the CEO tried `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/costs/retry-accounting`, got `403
board_access_required` whose remediation said `[Open
budgets](/<prefix>/activity/budgets)`, and told the person to use the
retry on Budgets. The retry control is on the Costs page.
**Expected behavior**
Board denials for cost routes name `[Open
costs](/<prefix>/activity/costs)`. Budget and budget-incident routes
still name Budgets.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As an agent, call `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/costs/retry-accounting`.
2. Read the 403 `remediation`.
3. It links `/<prefix>/activity/budgets`, a page with no cost retry
control.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: `COMPANY_COSTS_PAGE`
(`/<prefix>/activity/costs`); `/companies/:id/costs/*` denials use it.
Budgets and budget incidents keep `COMPANY_BUDGETS_PAGE`.
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the retry route's description says a
board user retries with Retry cost recording on the run's row on the
Costs page.
- `board-access-denial.test.ts`: regression row for the retry route (red
before the change, green after).
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-refusal-finality.test.ts
src/__tests__/cost-data-quality-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (server): all pass. The
new row fails without the `authz.ts` change.
- End-to-end: the chat eval case `budgets-costs.repair-cost-recording`
grades that the agent's guidance links the Costs page; it will be rerun
after this merges.
## Risks
- Low. Only the link text and target in cost-route denials and one
catalog description change. Agents that previously relayed Budgets now
relay Costs.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
34f71f7d57 |
fix(server): defer a run that meets a busy agent directory instead of failing it (#20829)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Each run of an agent with managed agent files gets a private copy of
the agent directory. Remote copies serialize their prepare, checkpoint,
collect, and release operations through one Postgres advisory lock per
agent, taken with `pg_try_advisory_xact_lock`
> - When the lock is busy, the operation fails at once with "Agent
directory operation is already active"
> - On staging, a deploy restarted the controller while three runs of
the same agent were active. When one run resumed, another run of that
agent was checkpointing its directory. The resume failed, used its last
attempt, and the task became blocked with "Retry or send a message"
> - A run must not fail because another run of the same agent is briefly
using the agent directory
> - This pull request keeps the fail-fast lock and, when it is busy
during preparation, puts the same native run back on the existing
same-run retry schedule a few seconds later
> - The benefit is that lock contention delays a run by seconds instead
of ending it as failed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A task's run failed with `native_continuation_requires_reconciliation`
and the error "Agent directory operation is already active". The task
was blocked and asked the user to retry. The same error ended at least
two other runs of the same agent within one day.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use an agent with managed agent files in a remote sandbox.
2. Let one run of the agent checkpoint or collect its agent directory.
3. At the same time, let another run of the same agent prepare (for
example, a same-run resume after a controller restart).
4. The second run fails immediately with "Agent directory operation is
already active".
**Expected behavior**
The second run waits until the first operation is done, then continues.
It does not end as failed.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/agent-directory-working-copies.ts`: The busy lock
now throws `AgentDirectoryOperationBusyError`, still a 409 with the same
message. Lock behavior is unchanged from `master`: a fail-fast
`pg_try_advisory_xact_lock` held for the life of the holder's
transaction.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat/agent-directory-busy.ts`:
`prepareWithAgentDirectoryDeferral` wraps only instruction preparation
and turns the busy error into `AgentDirectoryPreparationDeferral`
("Another run of this agent is still using its files"). A busy lock met
while collecting files after a turn is not wrapped and keeps its
existing path.
- **Before native admission** (a brand-new run, such as the first run of
a task): `server/src/services/heartbeat/retries.ts`
`finalizeAgentDirectoryBusyDeferral` cancels the run as an expected
control-plane wait (`providerWorkStarted: false`) and schedules an
`agent_directory_busy` retry 5–15 seconds later. The task keeps its
execution lock on the retry. The lane spends no failure retries
(`execution-recovery-attempt.ts`), its count is the retry run's
`scheduledRetryAttempt`, and it stops after 30 attempts.
`pre-dispatch-execution-evidence.ts` classifies this wait like the
existing workspace and AI-connection waits, so retry scheduling does not
ask for reconciliation.
- **A resumed native run**:
`server/src/services/native-runtime/native-controller-recovery.ts`
`deferNativeRunForBusyAgentDirectory` keeps the same run on the existing
same-run retry schedule without spending an attempt. It uses the same
guards as `deferNativeControllerRecovery`: it locks the task, requires
the task's execution run to be this run, requires the current lease
owner, and refuses after a Stop, a startup cancellation or a pending
native cancellation, so those settle normally. Its count is stored in
the run's `contextSnapshot`, which a resume claim does not clear, and it
stops after 30.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: routes a preparation deferral to
the same-run path or, before admission, to the scheduled-retry path.
After the bound it follows the normal failure path with the plain
message.
- No schema or migration. Postgres releases a dead holder's advisory
lock with its session. The staging evidence showed a live holder
(another run's checkpoint), not a stale one.
- `doc/DEVELOPING.md`: Documented both paths and the bound.
Earlier revisions of this PR waited on the lock and added idle-session
expiry, keepalive, ownership fences, fenced remote removal and attempt
slots. This revision removes all of them.
### How the directory-wait retry keeps the original wake
The retry no longer replaces the wake. `scheduleBoundedRetryForRun`
takes `preserveWakeContext` for this wait: the retry keeps the original
`wakeReason`, `retryReason` and the whole wake context (interaction,
comment, continuation and admission fields), and its wake request keeps
the original reason. The wait is recorded separately as
`preparationWait: { kind: "agent_directory_busy", attempt, nextAttemptAt
}`, next to the carried `executionRetryAccounting`. Gates that key on
the wake reason therefore treat the retry exactly as they treated the
original wake.
| # | Site | Treatment for the directory wait | Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | `heartbeat/retries.ts` `scheduleBoundedRetryForRun` | Changed:
`preserveWakeContext` keeps the original wake context and reason and
adds `preparationWait` | Root cause: the retry overwrote the wake reason
|
| 2 | `run-dispatch/domain/wake-context.ts`
`isResolvedInteractionContinuationWakeContext` /
`PREPARATION_WAIT_RETRY_REASONS` | Special case removed | The original
wake context is kept, so the continuation is classified from it |
| 3 | `heartbeat/retries.ts` `interactionRunnerWait` | Special case
removed | The interaction fields are kept in the context |
| 4 | `run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.ts` scheduled-retry dependency
facts | Changed: a preparation-wait retry whose original wake was
admitted as a dependency-blocked interaction
(`dependencyBlockedInteraction`, recorded at wake time) is admitted the
same way | Without the wait the original wake would have run; this gate
is only met because of the wait |
| 5 | `run-dispatch/domain/wake-context.ts`
`isNonAssigneeWorkspaceBusyRetry` + `heartbeat/retries.ts`
`finalizeAgentDirectoryBusyDeferral` | Kept:
`preparationWaitDeferredWhileAssignee`, derived only from the recorded
admission authority | The scheduled-retry ownership gate has no
wake-reason path; the workspace and AI waits use the same recorded flag
|
| 6 | `heartbeat/retries.ts` explicit user continuation admission |
Kept: admits the `agent_directory_busy` scheduling reason | The
successor needs its own authorization receipt |
| 7 | `execution-recovery-attempt.ts` uncharged lane and
`agentDirectoryWaits` | Kept | Cap and accounting |
| 8 | `pre-dispatch-execution-evidence.ts` (`isPreDispatchResourceWait`,
`isAgentDirectoryPreparationWait`), used by
`legacy-execution-recovery.ts`, `cancelled-native-startup.ts`,
`explicit-native-continuation.ts` | Kept | Describe the cancelled
pre-provider parent run, not the retry's wake |
| 9 | `explicit-native-continuation.ts`
`undeliveredLegacyUserCommentIds`, `run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.ts`
`unstartedUserTurnOrigin` | Kept | The cancelled parent did not consume
the user's comment |
| 10 | `execution-projection.ts` label and saved accounting,
`task-interruption-presentation.ts`, UI toast and chat suppression |
Kept | Presentation of the wait |
| 11 | `run-dispatch/domain/policy.ts` AI-wait lock requirement;
AI-subscription lock recheck; AI wait detection
(`execution-configuration.ts`, `provider-limit-wait.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`,
`ai-connections.ts`, `ai-connection-runtime.ts`, `local-ai-login.ts`) |
Not applicable | AI-subscription specific |
| 12 | `workspace-busy-wait.ts`, `environment-selection.ts`,
`workspace-preparation.ts`, UI workspace-holder banners | Not applicable
| Workspace holder parking; the directory wait is a timed retry |
| 13 | `cancelled-native-startup.ts` paused workspace-retry repair;
`failureRetriesBefore*Wait` | Not applicable | Historical workspace and
AI records only; every directory wait saves its ledger |
| 14 | `failedRunRetryBudgetSpent`; storage-wait exhaustion escalation;
`status-relevance.ts` `isAdmissionWait` | Not applicable | A directory
wait never fails the run, stops at its own bound, and its run has
started |
## Verification
- Original wake kinds after a directory wait
(`heartbeat-agent-directory-busy.test.ts`, real heartbeat): an
assignment runs; a plain user comment on a dependency-blocked task is
answered with `dependencyBlockedInteraction`; an accepted interaction
continuation keeps its parked-task and reassignment gates; a user
message continuation runs with its comment; an accepted non-assignee
mention runs; and a reassignment during preparation does not let the
previous assignee restart. Each retry keeps the original `wakeReason`
and records `preparationWait`. With `preserveWakeContext` off, five of
these fail. Restart recovery keeps its attempt credit
(`native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts`).
- Non-assignee wake: an accepted mention for an agent other than the
assignee meets a busy directory; its retry records
`preparationWaitDeferredWhileAssignee: false`, survives promotion, runs
and succeeds once the directory is free. Without the shared clause in
`isNonAssigneeWorkspaceBusyRetry`, promotion cancels it.
- Interaction continuations: `heartbeat-agent-directory-busy.test.ts`
runs an accepted interaction continuation into a busy directory. The
retry keeps `mutation`, `interactionId`, `interactionKind` and
`interactionStatus` and is still classified as a continuation. If the
task is moved to todo, or reassigned, while the retry waits, the retry
does not run and the task stays parked or with its new owner. With the
old explicit storage/Runner lists, both cases fail.
- Red/green, new run:
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-agent-directory-busy.test.ts` runs a
real heartbeat for a new assignment whose first instruction preparation
meets a busy lock. Without the preparation wrapper, the run ends failed
(red). With it, the first run is cancelled as a wait, an
`agent_directory_busy` retry is scheduled with the task still locked to
it, the retry runs and succeeds, and no run of the task is failed
(green).
- Red/green, same-run: with the deferral as a no-op, the same-run
deferral tests failed (`expected false to be true`); they now pass.
- `native-controller-recovery.integration.test.ts` covers repeated
claim-and-defer cycles of a resumed run: each cycle keeps the attempt
count, cannot be claimed before the delay, stores the count on the run,
and the fourth deferral past a bound of 3 is refused. It also covers
Stop after the busy error, a foreign lease owner and a moved task (each
refused, nothing changed), a run before admission, and that a raw busy
error (as from collection) is never deferred.
- Focused suites: 232/232 passed (`agent-directory-working-copies`,
`instruction-working-copy`, `heartbeat-agent-directory-busy`,
`native-controller-recovery.integration`, `heartbeat-retry-scheduling`).
`tsc --noEmit` for `server` reports no errors in the changed files.
- Staging evidence (read-only): the failed run had a graceful restart at
07:25Z, then same-run resumes. Its third attempt failed at 07:31:08Z.
Another run of the same agent recorded a warm checkpoint receipt at
07:31:37Z. A second run of the same agent failed the same way at
07:59:46Z.
## Risks
- A deferred run waits 5 to 15 seconds per deferral, up to 30 times. If
the holder is still busy after that, the run fails as before with a
plain message.
- Before admission, deferral cancels the run and creates a retry run,
like the existing workspace-busy wait.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5), Anthropic, with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fb695f7ae6 |
fix(secrets): let an approved binding fill a blank agent config value (#20908)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can propose binding a company secret to another agent; a person approves it with "Create binding" on a chat card > - Approval refuses when the target config key already holds a different value, so it never overwrites a working credential > - An empty string or empty plain value also counted as "already exists" > - So an agent whose key was cleared could not be repaired through the governed binding card: approval returned 409 > - This pull request treats a blank value like an unset key; non-empty values still conflict > - The benefit is that the supported binding approval repairs a member with a blank credential ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20879 **What happened** In the `teams.configure-team` chat eval, the CEO proposed binding the company OpenRouter secret to the QA member as `env.OPENROUTER_API_KEY`. QA's saved value was an empty string. Approving that proposal fails with 409 "Agent config path already exists: env.OPENROUTER_API_KEY". **Expected behavior** Approval fills a blank value (empty string or empty plain value) with the secret reference. A non-empty value still blocks the approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save an agent with `adapterConfig.env.TOKEN = ""`. 2. Have an agent propose a binding of a company secret to that agent as `env.TOKEN`. 3. Approve the proposal as the board user. 4. The approval returns 409 and the binding is not created. ## What Changed - `secret-proposals.ts`: `applyBindingApproval` treats `undefined`, `""` and `{ type: "plain", value: "" }` as an unset key for both `env.<KEY>` and other config paths. - `secret-proposals-routes.test.ts`: regression tests for an empty string and an empty plain value. The existing test that a non-empty value conflicts still passes. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts` (in `server/`): 49 passed. - Red check: without the service change, the two new tests fail. ## Risks - Low risk. Only a blank value changes behavior. A blank value carries no credential, so nothing working is replaced. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
eb5ad4c920 |
fix(cases): say a Cases-disabled denial is final and name the Experimental setting (#20892)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Cases is an experimental feature; an instance admin turns it on in
Experimental settings
> - When Cases is off, every case and workflow route answers 403 "Cases
are disabled" with no other information
> - A chat agent asked to "open a customer case" could not tell whether
the denial was final or what to offer
> - In one eval run it created a project and a task in place of the
case; in another it spent most of its turn searching routes before it
replied
> - This pull request gives the denial a code and a final, actionable
remediation, like the board-only denial
> - The benefit is a fast, truthful reply that names the setting and
lets the person choose
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval cases.cases-disabled ("Open a customer case for this
bug." with Cases off), the agent got 403 "Cases are disabled". In one
run it then created a project and a bug task without asking. In a later
run it searched many routes and instance settings for about 100 seconds
before it replied.
**Expected behavior**
The denial says that Cases is off, that the denial is final, where an
instance admin turns it on, and that the agent must not create a
substitute record before the person chooses. The agent replies at once
and offers the setting or an ordinary task.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Turn off Cases in Experimental settings.
2. As an agent, call GET /api/companies/{companyId}/cases.
3. See a bare 403 "Cases are disabled" with no code or remediation.
## What Changed
- Rebased on #20894, which already gave the case routes a
`cases_disabled` code, a final remediation and the hidden-settings
check. This PR moves that remediation into one helper used by every case
and workflow path, and adds: no substitute task or project before the
person chooses, and the offer of an ordinary task.
- New `casesDisabledError()` in `server/src/services/cases-disabled.ts`:
same 403 message, plus `code: "cases_disabled"` and a remediation. The
remediation says the denial is final, forbids a substitute task or
project before the person chooses, links `[Experimental
settings](/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/experimental)`, and offers
an ordinary task.
- Native tool results carry only the error message, so the native case
tools, workflow tools and runner tool authority inline the remediation
in the message (`casesDisabledError({ inlineRemediation: true })`).
- Case routes, workflow service, case handoffs, native case tools,
native workflow tools and the runner tool authority use the helper
instead of a bare `forbidden("Cases are disabled")`.
- Tests: `cases-routes.test.ts` checks the code and remediation;
`native-case-tools.integration.test.ts` checks the native message
carries the remediation (red on master, green here).
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts
src/services/case-handoffs.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/native-case-tools.integration.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-case-handoff.test.ts` (166 passed).
- The cases.cases-disabled chat eval is rerun on a temporary branch;
results are recorded in the PR conversation.
## Risks
- Low risk. The status and message do not change. The error body adds
`code` and `remediation`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6dc36700b1 |
fix(costs): mark unpriced usage in the agent, model and project cost reports (#20889)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Cost reports show what agents and projects spent
> - A run can have usage with no known price; Paperclip saves it with
costStatus "unpriced" and costCents 0
> - The summary and the provider, biller and user reports count those
events, but the agent, agent-model and project reports did not
> - An agent that read the by-agent-model report saw a native run at
costCents 0 and told the person it cost $0.00
> - This pull request adds unpricedEventCount to those three reports and
tells agents what it means
> - The benefit is that missing charges are reported as unpriced, not as
free
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval budgets-costs.spend-breakdown, the person asked "How
much did Launch cost this week, broken down by agent?". The week
included a real native run whose usage had no known price (data-quality
reason missing_price). The agent read /costs/by-agent-model and
/costs/by-project. Both returned costCents 0 for that usage and no
unpriced count. The reply showed "1 native run ($0.00)" and gave the
total as complete.
**Expected behavior**
The reports say which rows include unpriced usage. The agent says that
usage is unpriced, marks the total incomplete, and links the record.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Record one priced and one unpriced metered cost event for an agent in
a project.
2. Call GET /api/companies/{companyId}/costs/by-agent, /by-agent-model
and /by-project.
3. See costCents counts only the priced event, and no field shows the
unpriced event.
## What Changed
- `costService.byAgent`, `byAgentModel` and `byProject` return
`unpricedEventCount` (same filter as the summary: unpriced and not
subscription_included).
- Shared types `CostByAgent`, `CostByAgentModel` and `CostByProject` add
`unpricedEventCount`.
- The OpenAPI catalog entries for the cost reports that count unpriced
usage now say that costCents counts priced usage only, that unpriced
usage must be reported as unpriced (never $0.00), and that
/costs/data-quality lists those runs.
- Tests: embedded-Postgres service test (red on master, green here) and
an OpenAPI description test. A UI test fixture adds the new field.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` (19 passed). The
new test fails with the master service.
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (2146 passed).
- `tsc --noEmit` for packages/shared and server.
## Risks
- Low risk. One added aggregate column per report and an added response
field. The UI does not read it yet.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6154b9485e |
fix(authz): name the Experimental settings page when an agent is denied an instance experiment (#20894)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People ask chat agents to turn on instance experiments, such as
Cases
> - Agents cannot read or change experimental instance settings, which
is correct
> - The denial they get names no page, so the agent cannot tell the
person where to act
> - The case API gate ("Cases are disabled") also names no page
> - This pull request makes both denials, and the API catalog entry,
name the Experimental settings page
> - The benefit is that the agent replies with a usable link instead of
a vague "ask an admin"
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
An agent that asks for `GET` or `PATCH
/api/instance/settings/experimental` gets the generic board-only denial.
That denial says "Link a page only if you already know its route; do not
search for one." The case API, while Cases is off, returns only "Cases
are disabled". The agent has no route to give the person.
**Expected behavior**
The denial is final and names the page where an instance admin turns the
feature on: `[Open Experimental
settings](/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/experimental)`. If the
operator hides that page, the denial does not link it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use an agent API key.
2. Send `PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental` with
`{"enableCases": true}`.
3. See a 403 with a remediation that names no page.
4. With Cases off, send `GET /api/companies/<id>/cases` with the agent
key.
5. See a 403 "Cases are disabled" with no remediation.
Refs the chat eval `instance-operations.instance-settings` (retargeted
from the removed Agent Chat toggle to Cases).
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: the board-only denial map links
Experimental settings for `/instance/settings/experimental`. It does not
link it when `instance.experimental` is hidden.
- `server/src/routes/cases.ts`: the Cases gate keeps the "Cases are
disabled" message. It adds `code: cases_disabled` and a final
remediation that names the same page (same hidden-page guard).
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the GET and PATCH catalog entries for
experimental settings name the page. They say that agent credentials
cannot read or change these settings. They give Cases (`enableCases`) as
an example.
- Regression tests in `board-access-denial.test.ts`,
`cases-routes.test.ts` and `openapi-routes.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts`: 107 passed.
- Red check: with the three source files reverted, 4 new assertions fail
(GET and PATCH denial links, the catalog entry, the Cases gate).
- `src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` and
`src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`: pass.
## Risks
- Low risk. Only error bodies and catalog text change. Status codes and
the "Cases are disabled" message stay the same.
- The catalog text is static, so it names the page even when an operator
hides it. The denials check the hidden setting.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
a589b74fbf |
fix(chat): name goal links, missing-name questions and component reference pages in chat guidance (#20888)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People talk to their agents in chat, and the chat guidance tells the
agent how Paperclip works
> - Chat evals showed three gaps in that guidance
> - The agent explained a task's purpose from titles only, because the
guidance gives no goal link and no instruction to read goal descriptions
> - The agent built a full landing page with an invented product name,
because the chat guidance has no rule to ask for a missing name first
> - The agent posted a real question card or drew a text mock when the
person asked to see a card, because the guidance names the design guide
and ux-lab pages only in general
> - This pull request adds three short rules to the chat guidance
> - The benefit is grounded purpose answers with links, one necessary
question instead of placeholder work, and links to the real reference
pages
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In chat evals (OpenCode runner, DeepSeek flash): (1) "Why are we doing
this website task?" got an answer from titles only, with no goal links
and without the parent goal's stated reason. (2) "Build a landing page
for my new product." produced a full site named with a placeholder; the
agent never asked for the product name. (3) "Show me the standard
question card" made the agent post a real question card. "Show me how
chat looks when a tool request is denied" made the agent draw a text
mock and probe real tool requests.
**Expected behavior**
(1) The agent reads the task, project, goal and parent goals, gives the
reason that the goal descriptions state, and links each record. (2) The
agent asks one free-text question for the missing name and uses the
answer in the brief. (3) The agent links the design guide question card
or the denial ux-lab page and says they are synthetic presentation
fixtures.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the chat evals goals.explain-purpose,
questions-and-approvals.necessary-question,
developer-labs.component-reference and
developer-labs.interaction-fixture on master.
2. Read the reply and tool events of each run.
## What Changed
- Chat guidance: goal link format `/<prefix>/goals/<goalId>`, and a rule
to explain a task's purpose from its saved goal chain (GET
/api/goals/{id}, follow parentId), link every record, and say so when
the task has no goal.
- Chat guidance: ask for a missing name (for example the product name on
a landing page) with `request_human_input` (`questions`, one required
free-text question) before building or delegating; never use a
placeholder name.
- Chat guidance: when the person asks to see a component or chat state,
link the design guide (question card states) or the named `/ux-lab/...`
pages instead of creating a real card or a mock, and say they are
synthetic fixtures.
- Tests: new red/green tests in `agent-conversations.test.ts`; they also
check that the named UI routes exist in `ui/src/App.tsx`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` (62
passed); the new tests fail on master because the text is absent.
- `npx vitest run` for heartbeat-context-summary,
heartbeat-chat-task-link, board-access-denial, task-markdown,
current-wake-comments and heartbeat-list tests (119 passed).
- The affected chat evals are rerun on a temporary branch; results are
recorded in the PR conversation.
## Risks
- Low risk. Guidance text only. The chat directive grows by about 1.6
KB.
- The missing-name rule is narrow (a name the work must carry). It must
not cause extra questions for clear requests.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c02de922af |
fix(chat): deliver the person's time zone to chat agents (#20898)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to agents in chat, and agents create routines and other scheduled work from that chat > - Paperclip does not record the person's time zone, so a chat agent cannot read "every weekday at nine" or "today" in the person's zone > - The agent then saves schedules in UTC, and the person gets the work at the wrong hour > - This pull request saves the browser time zone with the person's personal preferences and gives it to chat agents in the task prompt > - The benefit is that schedules and dates from chat match the person's local time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A person in America/Chicago wrote in chat: "Every weekday at nine in the morning, summarize Launch for me." The agent saved the routine schedule `0 9 * * 1-5` with the UTC time zone. It replied that it used UTC because the person's time zone is not recorded. **Expected behavior** The agent knows the person's time zone. It saves one enabled `0 9 * * 1-5` schedule with the time zone America/Chicago. Its reply names the zone. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the board in a browser with the time zone America/Chicago. 2. Open a chat with an agent. 3. Send "Every weekday at nine in the morning, summarize Launch for me." 4. Look at the routine trigger that the agent creates. Its time zone is UTC. ## What Changed - Database: add the nullable `time_zone` column to `user_workspace_preferences` (migration `0468`). This is an instance-wide personal preference by user, as AGENTS.md section 5 permits. - Shared: `WorkspacePreference` has `timeZone`. `updateWorkspacePreferenceSchema` accepts an optional IANA `timeZone` (max 64 characters, checked with `Intl.DateTimeFormat`). `coordinatorWorkspaceEnabled` is now optional. The request must contain at least one field. - Server: the preference service returns `timeZone` and updates only the fields in the request. The activity log entry stays the same. The OpenAPI entry uses the shared schema. - UI: a new `useBrowserTimeZoneSync` hook in `Layout` saves the browser time zone one time when it is different from the saved zone. It is silent and best-effort. It uses the selected company as the audit context. - Prompt: for a conversation (any adapter), the task context reads the chat owner's saved zone. Recovery keeps the zone that the first turn admitted. The chat block adds one line only when the zone is known: `The person's time zone is America/Chicago (from their browser). Read times and dates they give, such as "nine in the morning" or "today", in that zone, and save schedules such as routine triggers with that timezone; say the zone when you report a schedule.` ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-preferences.test.ts src/__tests__/workspace-preferences-routes.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-context.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/hooks/useBrowserTimeZoneSync.test.tsx src/hooks/useCoordinatorWorkspaceEnabled.test.tsx src/components/Layout.test.tsx` - Red/green: without the task-context and task-markdown changes, the two new prompt tests fail. With the changes, they pass. - `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/shared` and `packages/db`. - Manual: open the board in a browser with a non-UTC zone. Then ask a chat agent to create a weekday routine at nine in the morning. The trigger uses the browser zone. ## Risks - Low risk. The migration adds one nullable column. - The PUT body is now more flexible: `coordinatorWorkspaceEnabled` is optional. An empty body still gets a 400 response. - The prompt grows by one line only for conversations with a known zone. - The saved zone changes when the person uses a browser in a different zone. The latest browser wins. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
683fd1e9a5 |
test(restart-chaos): cells for staging's no-restart failures (re-wake, Nth recovery step, long turn, K15 without volume) (#20893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The restart-chaos harness (`tests/restart-chaos/`) tests that agent work survives control-plane faults > - In one 8-hour staging window, 20 of 25 failed runs happened with no restart at all, so the harness did not see them > - The harness had blind spots: one short task per agent, no wake right after a successful run, no fault in a later recovery step, short turns, and a redeploy that always keeps its instance home > - This pull request adds cells for those shapes, so the harness reproduces these failure classes on master > - The benefit is that fixes for these classes can be proven red and green with the harness, without staging ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On staging, an agent ran 10–13 tasks at once on reused sandboxes. 30–60 s after a long run succeeded, an ordinary wake (a comment or an issue monitor) started the next run of the same task. That run or its recovery failed before any provider work, with errors such as `runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable`, `Controller journal drain timed out` and `journal_tool_input_unanswered`. Other failures happened in a later recovery step (a held agent-directory lock, a missing runtime asset after a deploy without a volume). **Expected behavior** The chaos harness can reproduce each of these shapes on demand, and grades them: no failed attempt, every task `done`, and no task left blocked without a working Retry. **Steps to reproduce** See the commands in the README sections "Re-wake after success", "Fail the Nth recovery step", "Long turn" and "Redeploy without a volume, with overlap". Related: #20844 (session fault SR1). W2C is the configuration change after a successful run; SR1 is the same change while a question is parked. This PR does not add or change `session-faults.ts`. ## What Changed - New workloads W2, W2Q, W2C (`rewake.ts`): phase 1 ends with the task left open; the harness, as the board, wakes the same task the seeded 0–60 s after its run settled. W2 uses a comment or a board-scheduled issue monitor (by nonce). W2Q parks on an unanswered `request_human_input` question and is woken by a comment before the answer. W2C changes the agent's `adapterConfig.idleTimeoutMs` before the wake. Oracle: phase 1 succeeded, the wake was served by a run that succeeded, `no_failed_attempt`, `done`, markers. - `--faults K0`: cells with no fault, for workloads whose shape is the fault. - `--fail-recovery-step <step>[:<nth>]` (`recovery-step-faults.ts`): when the wave's first restart fault starts its replacement, the harness arms one crash point in a new fail mode; the nth hit throws the error of the real step, once. Steps: `runnerd-start` (`spawn paperclip-runnerd EAGAIN`), `teardown` (provider destroy did not finish), `directory-lock` (`Agent directory operation is already active`). Crossed tasks get `recovery_step_failed_once` and `no_failed_attempt`. - Crash points (`packages/shared/src/crash-points.ts`): fail mode in the control file (`<token> <name>:<nth> fail [pid=<n>]`), with an optional call-site error; `pid=` binds the line to one server process. The harness arms the step for the replacement only and disarms it once its receipt lands. New point `agent_directory.operation_lock.before_acquire`. The teardown point moved into its `try`, so fail mode behaves like a failed provider destroy; kill mode is unchanged. All points stay disarmed under `NODE_ENV=production`. The runner package's own crash-point copy is not changed (runner image content ID unchanged). - `--long-turn-minutes <n>` (`long-turn.ts`, 15–60, opt-in): every task's first turn runs rounds of real tool work for n minutes before its workload. Checks `long_turn_rounds` and `long_turn_run_observed`. - K15 `--k15-fresh-home` (Daytona) and `--k15-overlap-seconds <min>-<max>` (`redeploy.ts`, `supervisor.ts`, `edge-proxy.ts`): each deploy generation gets a new, empty instance home and no volume variables; the next generation boots beside the old one behind an edge proxy on the wave's port, takes traffic once ready, and the old one gets SIGTERM after the overlap. - `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`: refreshed pins for the changed shared crash-point files. - README: one section per new cell, with what it covers. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts` (48 files, 581 tests after rebasing on master, includes the new `shape-cells.test.ts`). - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/crash-points.test.ts server/src/__tests__/crash-point-call-sites.test.ts` (fail mode, call sites). - `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs tests/restart-chaos`. - Chaos waves on master `1d67e309e0` server code (Daytona image `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:99fc2671fc320816407f63cffd3acbd27471621febcd26494fe25bb5d7c5dd77`, content ID `1836c515…`), all RED unless noted: | Cell | Wave | Result on master | Staging class | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | W2/W2Q/W2C, 10 tasks on one Codex agent, `--daytona-warm`, K0 | `w-20261111T163206-s5201` | 9/10 fail. 3 tasks (W2 t02, W2C t03, t06): first fault `native_runner_process_exited`, same-run reattach, `native.remote_runner_recovery_failed` with `stage: process_verification`, `reason: process_not_running`, `runnerLifecycle: ready`, `runnerSettled: false`, terminal `runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable`, "Workspace repair required". 3 tasks (t04, t08, t10): `native_restart_recovery_blocked` (`native_retry_source_superseded`) while its successor ran (R4 `concurrent_runs`). 3 W2Q tasks: the answer's continuation was cancelled `issue_not_in_progress` (status `blocked`), and the task needed Retry. 2 W2C tasks then looped: 60+ succeeded runs in 20 minutes on an `in_progress` task. | D′/T terminal step reproduced with no restart, no governed wait and no PRP timeout (same error code and refusal fields). C+ retry outcome (ownership ambiguous) reproduced as `native_restart_recovery_blocked`. Not reproduced: `Controller journal drain timed out`, `did not durably suspend`, `journal_tool_input_unanswered`. | | Same, local `--lifecycle warm` | `w-20261111T160103-s5101` | 4/10 fail. 3/3 W2Q: continuation cancelled `issue_not_in_progress`, Retry needed. 1 W2C: the same `in_progress` run loop (39+ runs). | The remote-runner classes need a remote runner; locally they do not show. | | `--fail-recovery-step runnerd-start:1`, K1 at 10 s, local A1 | `w-20261111T162432-s5303` | Fail. After K1 the first runnerd start of recovery failed (`spawn paperclip-runnerd EAGAIN`); the run ended `native_provider_terminal_failed` ("previous turn is no longer active", "Automatic recovery stopped") and needed Retry. Control, same seed and K1 without the step fault (`w-20261111T171114-s5303`): pass. | A later recovery step that fails once ends the run instead of trying again (the A-chain shape). | | `runnerd-start:2`, local | `w-20261111T170909-s5304` | Step never reached: recovery started the runner once and succeeded. Grade fails `recovery_step_failed_once` (tested nothing). | — | | `teardown:1`, K1, Daytona A1 | `w-20261111T172048-s5312` | Pass. The teardown failed once and the sweep settled it. | Not reproduced. | | `directory-lock:1`, K2, Daytona A1 | `w-20261111T171247-s5311` | Step never reached by A1 after K2. | Not reproduced; A1 recovery does not collect remote agent files. | | K15 `--k15-fresh-home --k15-overlap-seconds 30-150`, `--storage s3`, Codex and OpenCode, T1/C1 | `w-20261111T173618-s5322` | 1/4 fail (OpenCode T1): `native_continuation_requires_reconciliation` with "Agent directory belongs to a different execution environment"; the Retry runs failed `adapter_failed` "Configured instruction entry is missing"; the task rests `blocked` on a board recovery action, and two sandboxes were left (R6). One Codex T1 task finished before its fault (`fault_crossed_tool`). | A-deploy: a controller-local file missing after a deploy without a volume. Here the missing file is the agent's instruction bundle, not a runtime-context asset; whether staging keeps instruction bundles outside the instance home is not verified. | | `--long-turn-minutes 15`, K1 at 600 s, local A1 | `w-20261111T175505-s5401` | Task pass (10/10 rounds, 992 s span, run 1019 s, K1 crossed mid-turn). The wave exited 2 only because I switched branches in the worktree during the wave. | Shape check only. | ## Risks - Product code changes are test instrumentation only: three `crashPoint` call sites take a fail-mode error, and one new call site was added. Disarmed (always in production) each call is one comparison. Moving the teardown point into its `try` does not change kill mode: the process dies at the same instant. - The new cells are opt-in. Default waves plan the same tasks as before for the same seed. - The W2 cells depend on model behaviour (phase 1 leaves the task open). The oracle records the task status at the wake. - `--k15-fresh-home` drops everything under the instance home. Whether staging keeps agent instruction bundles outside the instance home is not verified (see the K15 result). ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, agentic coding with tool use (shell, file edits, test and chaos runs) in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
b96967a97b |
fix(authz): name the environment settings page when an agent is denied an environment route (#20880)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Execution environments are the computers that agents run on. Only a
board user can list, inspect, test or change them.
> - An agent in chat can be asked "Which computer can run Morgan with
Claude Code?". Its first environment read returns 403.
> - The 403 says the denial is final, but it names no page. The agent
cannot link the person to the control that answers the question.
> - Other board-only areas (secrets, plugins, budgets) already name
their page in the denial.
> - This pull request adds the environment settings page to the agent
denial for every environment route, and says that testing and changing
computers are board-only too.
> - The benefit is that the agent can send the person straight to the
correct control, and it does not search for a probe route that does not
exist.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
An agent asked which computer can run a coding harness called the
environment list or capabilities route. The route returned 403 "Board
access required" with a remediation that named no page ("Link a page
only if you already know its route; do not search for one"). The agent
had no route to give the person.
**Expected behavior**
The denial names the environment settings page as a Markdown link with
the `<prefix>` placeholder, like the denials for secrets and plugins. It
also says that the other environment steps (capabilities, probes,
changes) are board-only, so the agent replies instead of trying them.
When an operator hides environment settings
(`PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS=instance.environments`), the denial does not
link the page.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use an agent API key.
2. Call `GET /api/companies/<companyId>/environments/capabilities`.
3. Read the 403 body. Before this change, `remediation` contains no
link.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: board-only denials on
`/companies/:id/environments...`, `/environments/...` and
`/environment-leases/...` now link `[Open environment
settings](/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/environments)` and add one
sentence that says execution environments are board-only throughout. The
link is left out when the operator hides `instance.environments`.
`/companies/:id/project-environments` (agent-readable) is not matched.
- `server/src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: regression tests
for the list, capabilities, probe and lease routes, the scope sentence,
the project-environments exclusion, and the hidden-settings case.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: 33 passed. With the old
`authz.ts`, 5 of the new tests fail (red), and they pass with the change
(green).
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`: 99 and 126 passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. Only the agent-facing 403 remediation text changes. Status
codes, the error code and board behavior do not change.
- The scope sentence is environment-specific, so other denials are
unchanged.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
5dfbb04b85 |
Poll asynchronous workspace provider preparation (#20865)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip starts agent runs through a workspace provider when a project uses remote storage. > - The provider must prepare the workspace before the agent starts. > - One long worker call ties the checkout to its transport. > - Some checkouts take longer than the transport allows. > - This change lets an opted-in provider accept work and report its deadline. > - Core waits for completion through short status calls and stops at the provider deadline. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A workspace provider can lose its reply when preparation takes longer than a single transport request. This stops run bootstrap before agent execution. **Expected behavior** Core should wait for a provider-confirmed workspace through short requests. The provider's deadline must bound the wait. **Steps to reproduce** Use a workspace provider that takes longer to prepare a checkout than its transport can remain open. Start a run that requires a new checkout. ## What Changed - Add an optional workspace preparation method to the plugin SDK. - Validate pending receipts and keep the original binding checks on completed replies. - Poll only during active preparation. Retry a lost status reply within the advertised deadline. - Preserve the original operation for providers that do not offer asynchronous preparation. - Reject deadline offers that exceed the existing lifecycle lock budget. Honor accepted offers without shortening them. - Checkout verification uses the existing synchronous RPC with a 10-second deadline and a 12-second transport timeout. [Core verification PR #20876](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20876) ## Verification - All 63 workspace SDK and Core integration tests passed with temporary local PostgreSQL. The tests cover lost status replies, deadline expiry, oversized offers, and synchronous verification with an async-capable worker. - All 58 runner SDK input, evidence, and public type tests passed with the regenerated source pins. The local server typecheck passed. ## Risks - This change activates only when the provider advertises the method. Existing providers keep their current behavior. - Polling uses one-second intervals during active preparation. It stops at completion, failure, or the provider deadline. - No database migration is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 Codex with local code execution and tests. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
566a97b882 |
fix(native): an unretirable predecessor sends the next attempt to a fresh sandbox (#20863)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native runs on a reused sandbox keep the previous run's warm Runner, and a new run must retire that owner before it starts > - #20844 retires the owner when Paperclip can prove it stopped. Some owners can never be proven stopped: the controller journal drain outlives the close grace, the Runner never confirms suspension, or a parked question leaves a tool input unanswered > - Then the new run failed before any provider work, and the task stayed blocked with no automatic continuation > - The general answer is to leave the old Runner on its sandbox and start the next attempt on a fresh sandbox restored from the saved workspace > - This pull request adds that fallback for every path that retires a predecessor, and settles a parked question's tool input once its Runner is gone > - The benefit is that an unprovable predecessor no longer fails a task that did no work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An automatic wake started a new run 30 to 60 seconds after a long successful run on the same task, on the same reused sandbox. The new run had to retire the previous run's warm session first. The retirement failed and the run failed before any provider work, with one of: - `Controller journal drain timed out; preserve the session before replacing its writer.` (during instruction preparation, before runtime selection, or in the executor); - `provider_transport_failed: runner did not durably suspend before checkpoint` (during instruction preparation); - `runner_state_identity_mismatch: prior_owner_terminal_state_indeterminate; retirement_refused=journal_tool_input_unanswered` (the previous run had parked on a question). The tasks rested `blocked` with a reconciliation hold or with nothing scheduled. One bounded retry reused the same sandbox and ended `execution_finalization_deadline_exceeded`, then its recovery refused with `allocation_ownership_ambiguous`. **Expected behavior** A run that did no provider work does not fail the task because its predecessor cannot be retired. The next attempt drops the reused sandbox and starts on a fresh one restored from the saved workspace. Unsaved work is never dropped: when the workspace or the session backup is not durably saved, the sandbox is kept and today's behavior applies. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a warm native run on a Daytona sandbox. 2. Wake the task again so that the next run must retire the warm owner (configuration change, new session, changed agent files). 3. Make the owner's close fail (journal drain timeout, unconfirmed suspension). 4. The new run fails before provider work and the task is not continued. Refs #20844, #18373. ## What Changed - `native-runtime/predecessor-retirement.ts`: a typed pre-provider error `NativePredecessorRetirementUnprovenError` (`native_predecessor_retirement_unproven`) and the `replaceBeforeReuse` lease marker. - Native executor: every path that retires a predecessor for a new run (instruction-copy claim, instruction-directory reservation, session reset, configuration change) throws the typed error when the close fails. The owner stays registered for its own sandbox, so no run on that sandbox launches over it. A run on a different sandbox forgets that owner instead of replaying its cached rejected close. The executor does not settle this error as a provider failure. - A prior-owner fence that refuses a terminal owner on a resumed sandbox (`prior_owner_terminal_state_indeterminate`) also throws the typed error. - Retirement of a finished remote owner accepts an unanswered tool input when the owner's committed result is a governed-wait park (`response_wake` on a task interaction) and its Runner's sandbox lease ended elsewhere. - Heartbeat (`heartbeat/predecessor-retirement-fallback.ts`): on the typed error with no execution-start evidence and no result, mark this run's reusable lease on that sandbox `replaceBeforeReuse` and log `environment.lease_replacement_requested`. After the run ends, `failRun` hands the prepared workspace on only through the shared unchanged-files proof (`proveRemoteWorkspaceUnchanged`; a provisioning command or any runner command refuses it). With the proof it records `predecessorRetirementFallback`, closes the run's coordinator without a result and re-queues the run in the uncharged `interrupted_preparation` lane (native and legacy runtime modes); a run that answered a task interaction keeps its own wake in that uncharged lane, so the retry still carries the answer. Without the proof the workspace stays dirty, heartbeat runs today's failed-workspace preservation and no retry is scheduled. - Environment runtime: a marked lease is replaced instead of resumed, under the same rule as a failed resume (`reusableSandboxReplacementIsSafe`: run ended, clean workspace with a committed save, verified harness backup). The old lease goes to `pending_cleanup` for the sweep. Otherwise the sandbox is resumed as before. - Chaos: session fault SR1U, the SR1 variant where the retained owner cannot be retired. The server gets a test-only fault (`PAPERCLIP_TEST_WARM_RETIREMENT_FAULT=unconfirmed`, armed only when `NODE_ENV=test`). The oracle allows only the fallback failure and requires the succeeding follow-up on a different sandbox. - Docs: `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_RUNNER_EXECUTION.md`, chaos README. ## Verification - RED on master before this change (with #20844), then GREEN: - `native-session-executor.test.ts -t "predecessor cannot be retired"`: base fails with `Error: Controller journal drain timed out…` instead of the typed error. - `native-session-executor.test.ts -t "unretired predecessor"` (instruction preparation): same base failure. - `native-recovered-owner-followup.test.ts -t "unacknowledged"`: base fails with `runner_state_identity_mismatch: prior_owner_terminal_state_indeterminate; retirement_refused=journal_tool_input_unanswered`. - New contract tests: `heartbeat-native-predispatch-retry.test.ts` (claimed native run: lease marked, activity logged, uncharged `interrupted_preparation` retry, no recovery action, task not blocked, retry succeeds) and `environment-runtime-reusable-resume-replacement.test.ts` (a marked lease is replaced without a resume; with unsaved work or no verified backup it resumes as before), `remote-workspace-unchanged-release.test.ts` (an untouched workspace is handed on; a setup-written one stays dirty) and `retries.test.ts` (an answered interaction re-queued in the uncharged lane stays a resolved-interaction continuation with no failure retry spent). - Existing suites pass: the native executor, recovered-owner follow-up, instruction working copy, run completion, run failure cause and resume replacement test files. `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts question-handoff scheduler config` passes. Server and chaos harness `tsc --noEmit` pass. - Not run: a Daytona SR1U wave. It needs a runner image that matches this checkout. ## Risks - A sandbox marked for replacement is resumed when it cannot be replaced safely. That run can meet the same unretired owner again, fail again in the bounded lane, and then rest with Retry, as today. - The replacement session restores the latest verified harness backup. When the old Runner's final checkpoint was never saved, a same-session continuation resumes from that backup. - An unanswered tool input is accepted only for a committed governed-wait park whose Runner's sandbox lease ended on another sandbox. - Previous-release story: the marker and the run record are additive JSON. An older server ignores the marker and resumes the sandbox as before. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, agentic coding with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs) in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
ffe05b1b7c |
fix(heartbeat): retry every pre-provider lease acquisition failure and rest it on Retry (#20857)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task run takes an environment lease (for example a Daytona sandbox) before the agent starts. No provider work happens before that lease exists. > - Only a provider HTTP status or a connection errno counted as a transient lease failure. #20828 (merged while this was open) added the Daytona acquisition deadline. A database error while the lease was recorded, a plugin RPC deadline, and an unfinished provisional creation still did not count. > - Those failures became a generic `setup_failed` with no bounded retry. And when the bounded retries of any `environment_provider_unavailable` failure were used up, recovery still put the task on a board-owned `stranded_assigned_issue` action. > - A hosted instance saw this for six runs in 45 minutes when concurrent runs rose from about 8 to about 20. Two tasks stayed blocked and waited for the board. > - This pull request classifies every lease acquisition failure that has structured transient evidence as `environment_provider_unavailable`. When the bounded retries are used up, the task rests on a system-owned action and a working Retry. > - It also adds the restart-chaos fault EP1, so the harness covers lease acquisition failures from now on. > - The benefit is that a busy or slow sandbox provider no longer strands tasks on the board. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. **What happened?** Five runs failed with `Failed to acquire lease for environment "Paperclip Sandbox" (sandbox): Daytona lease acquisition timed out; allocation cleanup is pending` after 5 to 6 minutes in `preparing`. One run failed with `Database query failed (lease_acquire_failed)` within 10 seconds. Every run recorded `executionRecovery: { kind: "bootstrap", providerWorkStarted: false }`, but the error code was `setup_failed`. No run got a bounded retry. Two tasks were left `blocked` with a board-owned `stranded_assigned_issue` recovery action. **Expected behavior** A lease acquisition failure happens before any provider work. The run must retry with a bounded, visible backoff. When the bound is used up, the task must rest with a Retry that works, and no board-owned recovery action. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Make lease acquisition fail with the provider's acquisition deadline (the validated acquisition diagnostic that the environment runtime records), or with a database driver error. 2. Let the run start. 3. Before this change, the run fails with `setup_failed`, no retry is scheduled, and recovery creates a board-owned `stranded_assigned_issue` action. ## What Changed **How this PR and #20828 divide the problem.** #20828 (merged) makes the Daytona plugin end a stuck create early and classifies the acquisition-deadline envelope as `environment_provider_unavailable`. This PR does not change the Daytona plugin or that deadline path. It adds only what #20828 leaves out: - a lease-acquisition failure that is not a create timeout: the plugin RPC deadline (`-32003`) and an unfinished provisional creation recorded for this run; - a transient database error while the lease is recorded; - the exhausted state: a system-owned recovery action and Retry instead of a board-owned `stranded_assigned_issue`, for every `environment_provider_unavailable` cause (including #20828's); - the chaos fault EP1 (EP1, EP1N, EP1D). - `readTransientLeaseAcquisitionFailure` (`server/src/services/environment-provider-unavailable-error.ts`) classifies a lease acquisition failure as transient when it has structured evidence: the provider status or errno (as before), the run's own validated acquisition diagnostic (deadline or unfinished provisional creation), the plugin RPC deadline, or a transient database error (a postgres.js connection code, or SQLSTATE class 08 or 53, 57P01-57P03, 57014, 55P03, 40001, 40P01). A deterministic SQL error (syntax, schema, constraint) is not retried. A definite non-transient status (for example HTTP 401 or 404) is still `setup_failed`. Message text is not parsed. - `environment-run-orchestrator.ts` uses this classifier, so these failures get `environment_provider_unavailable` and the existing bounded bootstrap retry (30 s, then 60 s, with jitter). The task shows "retry scheduled" while it waits. - When the retries are used up, recovery uses the cause `environment_provider_unavailable` with a system-owned action and no board routing. The notice says "Retry when ready" and does not ask for a board decision. The task's Retry starts a new acquisition. - Restart-chaos fault EP1: a test-mode server seam (`environment-lease-fault-injection.ts`, read from `PAPERCLIP_CHAOS_LEASE_FAULT_CONTROL`, ignored in production) throws the staging error shapes before any provider call. `tests/restart-chaos/env-provider-wave.ts` runs EP1 (deadline twice, then success), EP1N (deadline forever, then Retry after disarm) and EP1D (database error once). The oracle fails on any `setup_failed` run, any board-owned recovery action, a wrong retry count, or a task that does not complete. - Docs: `doc/execution-semantics.md` and `tests/restart-chaos/README.md`. ## Verification - RED on `origin/master` (`1d67e309e0`, before #20828): the three new tests in `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` ("transient sandbox provider refusal during lease acquisition") fail with the staging result: `expected [ [ 'failed', 'setup_failed' ] ] to deeply equal [ [ 'failed', 'environment_provider_unavailable' ], [ 'scheduled_retry', null ] ]`. On current master the deadline now retries (#20828), but the exhausted case still rests on a board-owned `stranded_assigned_issue` action (the existing HTTP 502 exhaustion test showed `ownerType: "board"` before the recovery change), and the database error is still `setup_failed`. - GREEN: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "lease acquisition"` passes 5 of 5. This includes the deadline and the database error that retry once and then complete, and the deadline that never clears. That task rests `blocked` with a system-owned action, `canRetry: true`, no execution blocker, and Retry completes it. - Unit tests: `environment-provider-unavailable-error.test.ts` + `environment-lease-fault-injection.test.ts` (56), `tests/restart-chaos/env-provider-faults.test.ts` (6) pass. - Related suites pass: `environment-run-orchestrator`, `task-interruption-query`, `issue-recovery-actions`, `issue-recovery-deadlines`, `stranded-notice`, `heartbeat-native-resume-lease-failure`. - `server` and `tests/restart-chaos` typecheck pass. - Chaos waves (local, Codex `gpt-6.1-sol`, head `1bd387e98f`; the later head changes only database classification and the notice), all pass: - EP1 `w-20261111T171803-s71-ep`, 2 tasks: each had exactly 2 `environment_provider_unavailable` runs, then succeeded with no user action, no board-owned recovery action, brief oracle pass. - EP1D `w-20261111T172850-s73-ep`, 1 task: 1 failed run on the database error, then succeeded. - EP1N `w-20261111T173346-s74-ep` (and `w-20261111T162752-s72-ep` before the rebase): 3 failed runs, the task rested `blocked` with `canRetry: true` and no board-owned action; after disarm, Retry completed it. - No Daytona wave was run. The fault is injected in the server before the provider call, so a local instance reaches the same retry and recovery code. ## Risks - More failures now retry, all bounded. Only transient SQLSTATEs retry. The staging database error recorded no SQLSTATE. If it was a deterministic SQL error, it still fails `setup_failed` and goes to the board as before; that is intended, because a retry cannot fix it. - Each retry is a new creation attempt with its own creation record. A provisional allocation whose cleanup is pending stays with its record and the creation reconciler, as before. - The retry bound is the shared bootstrap bound (two retries). A provider outage longer than about 15 minutes still rests on Retry, but no longer on a board action. - The fault seam reads a file only when the environment variable is set, and never when `NODE_ENV=production`. - Saved state from the previous release: no persisted shape changes. A task already stranded on a board action keeps it (`preserveExistingOwner`). New failures use the new cause. > 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 - Claude (Anthropic) through Claude Code, model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, with tool use and code 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 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
b2edea5754 |
fix(workspaces): verify existing worktrees before fresh retries (#20876)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents. > - Retry checks whether the task can keep its existing workspace. > - A provider can complete checkout before Core receives the result. > - Recreating a completed worktree costs time and can change its base commit. > - Core uses the same ownership and writer checks for local and provider workspaces. > - The provider verifies its checkout before Core creates a fresh workspace. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retry can allocate a new provider worktree even though the original checkout completed. **Steps to reproduce** Complete workspace checkout through a storage provider. Fail Runner startup or lose the prepare reply. Retry the task. **Expected behavior** Reuse the same worktree when the provider confirms checkout and the prior run can no longer write to it. Related: #20865 addresses timeouts while the original prepare is in progress. This PR checks an earlier checkout when the user retries. ## What Changed - Check the prior task binding and writer state before asking a storage provider to verify a checkout. - Extend the existing prepare operation with an optional verification mode. Providers opt in through their manifest. - Return through normal workspace reuse after verification. Keep the fresh retry fallback when verification cannot establish checkout. ## Verification - Core workspace preparation, plugin workspace ownership, retry continuity, and SDK workspace-provider suites passed locally (213 tests). - Focused cases pass for provider verification, retry through heartbeat dispatch, and real local Git checkout verification with no plugin worker. The heartbeat test confirms that ordinary preparation and adapter dispatch keep the original workspace, branch, and base commit. - Core server typecheck passed before the final audit and timing edits. GitHub CI covers the final revision and broader regressions. ## Risks Provider verification adds one bounded call before a fresh retry. Older providers keep their current behavior. Verification must preserve the workspace, branch, and recorded base commit. The normal execution preparation checks still run before admission. No database migration is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with source inspection 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 either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal issue details - [x] I have run targeted 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
14cb69245f |
fix(projects): do not offer a single project storage option (#20875)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A project uses one workspace storage owner. The user chooses it when they create the project. > - The **Available in** selector shows the storage owners that the user can choose. > - Sometimes the default environment cannot be used, and only one storage owner is available. In that case, the dialog shows a selector with only one option. The user must select it before they can create the project. > - A selector with only one option is not a real choice. > - This pull request uses the only available storage owner as the default. The selector appears only when the user has two or more options. > - The benefit is that project creation asks for a choice only when there is one. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20835 **What happened?** An example is an instance in managed-sandbox-only mode that has the agent-computer plugin but no managed sandbox. The local environment is hidden, and the managed-only rule finds no default. The project-environments endpoint returns one storage group and an error. The new project dialog shows **Available in** with only one option and disables **Create project** until the user selects it. An API request without `environmentId` fails with `project_environment_unavailable`. **What did you expect?** When only one storage owner is available, the project uses it. No selector appears. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Turn on `enableManagedSandboxOnly`. Install the agent-computer plugin. Do not add a sandbox environment. 2. Open **Create project**. 3. See an **Available in** selector with one option, and a disabled **Create project** button. ## What Changed - `projectEnvironmentOptions`: when the configured default is unavailable and only one storage group exists, the first environment of that group becomes `defaultEnvironmentId`, and `error` is null. When two or more groups exist, an unavailable default still produces the error. The server does not guess. - Project create uses the same default, so an API request without `environmentId` now succeeds in the single-group case. - `NewProjectDialog` shows the selector only when `groups.length > 1`. - Tests: - A new server test covers managed-only mode with only the agent-computer environment. - A new server test covers an unavailable default with two storage groups (the server still refuses to guess). - The archived-default test now expects the server to use the only remaining storage. - A new UI test checks that the dialog never shows one option. - Docs: `doc/project-environment-compatibility.md` and `docs/api/goals-and-projects.md`. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/project-environments.test.ts` in `server/`: 16 passed. - `pnpm vitest run src/components/NewProjectDialog` in `ui/`: 12 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` in `ui/`: clean. - Server `tsc` reports 9 errors on this machine. None are in the changed files. They are in `packages/adapter-utils` and a native-runtime test, because local dependencies are stale. CI typechecks with a fresh install. ## Risks - Low risk. The change applies only when the default is unavailable and exactly one storage group exists. In that case, the server picks the group that the user would have had to choose anyway. Run placement does not depend on the project, so this does not change where runs execute. - No migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cda23f08ac |
fix(db): preserve legacy project reads during rolling upgrades (#20860)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls agent work while web servers change versions. > - The old and new servers can share a database during that change. > - Older servers still read and write the project environment column. > - Migration 0466 removes that column before those servers stop serving. > - A later repair alone leaves a committed missing-column window and loses values. > - This pull request applies the exact drop and repair in one transaction. > - Old reads and saved values survive while current placement behavior stays unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20835 and #20852. **What happened?** Migration 0466 drops `projects.environment_id`. The previous server still selects that column and reads it during admission. Applying a separate repair afterward leaves a window in which those requests fail. The drop also removes saved values. **Expected behavior** A database that has not yet applied 0466 must keep the column and its values visible to concurrent old servers throughout the upgrade. Both published migration entries must be recorded truthfully. Current project responses must keep the new workspace placement contract. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a database before migration 0466 with nonempty project environment values. 2. Keep an old project writer transaction open and start the pending migrator. 3. Start an old project read, then commit the writer. 4. Without this repair, the saved values disappear. With this repair, the reader sees the preserved values and both migrations commit together. ## What Changed - Add migration 0467 to restore the legacy nullable UUID column and its original foreign key. Leave the published 0466 SQL unchanged. - Apply only the exact SHA-bound 0466/0467 pair in one transaction. Lock the project table, retain nonempty values in a temporary table, execute both real SQL files, restore values, and record both real journal entries before commit. - Apply the additive 0467 repair normally when 0466 was already committed. - Keep a deprecated database-only field and omit it from current project API responses. Current placement logic stays unchanged. - Add PostgreSQL regressions for concurrent old reads and writes, idempotence, rollback, and an already-applied drop. Document the overlap contract and retain the five newest generated snapshots. ## Verification - Node 24 cached agent preflight passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/project-environment-overlap-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/project-environments.test.ts -t 'project environment rolling migration|saves storage, not'`: 4 passed in 32.57 seconds against real disposable PostgreSQL. - Before the owner fix, the regression had two failures: saved values disappeared and the restore-failure case committed. The fixed case proves that both DDL and journal entries roll back together. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. Migration 0466 bytes are unchanged. The generated snapshot set is 0463 through 0467. - Review found a raw DELETE response that still exposed the database-only field. The delete projection now omits it; a real authorized HTTP DELETE passed with successful cleanup. The concurrency test now observes the old reader waiting inside PostgreSQL before releasing the old writer. All three migration cases passed with that barrier. Earlier HTTP fixture setup/cleanup failures remain recorded as failed attempts; they were not product-regression passes. - Candidate `047178538c0df3a9e382259a51635a6e46da5646` has fresh Greptile 5/5 with no open findings. [Required final-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43062354612) passed, including build, typecheck, migration checks, all test shards and the aggregate verification gate. The separate Superagent security scan ended inconclusive/neutral; it did not produce a passed scan. Deployed acceptance remains pending. No hosted database or app deployment was changed by this branch. ## Risks The pair takes a table lock for its transaction. Operators must retain their normal lock and statement timeouts. Both SQL files and their exact hashes must match before the pair runs. A failed restore rolls back the drop and both journal entries. If 0466 was already committed, 0467 restores the column and foreign key. It cannot recover values that were already deleted by the earlier release. This repair does not claim to recover those values. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with tool-assisted implementation and real PostgreSQL qualification. The exact serving model ID and context window 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 and contains no internal 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e0e6462a73 |
fix(heartbeat): keep an agent's explicit resume comment that a stale continuation dropped (#20856)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents coordinate on tasks through comments. A comment posted with `resume: true` is an explicit request for more work; on a finished task it reopens the task, for a person or for another agent. > - A comment that arrives while the assignee's run is still settling queues its own run. If the settling run then closes the task, that queued run is cancelled before dispatch as a stale continuation (`continuation_task_ownership_changed`). > - For a person's comment, the outbox saves the unread message first and the release drain reopens the task (chaos s9401/t72). For another agent's explicit `resume: true` comment, nothing was saved. The request was dropped and the task stayed `done`. > - This pull request saves that agent comment too, with its explicit resume intent. The existing release-drain rule for an agent's explicit resume reopens the task and delivers the comment once. > - The benefit is that a parent agent's "do this next turn" request is not lost to a timing race. An agent comment without `resume: true` stays communicative, as before. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On a hosted staging instance, a parent agent posted a comment with `resume: true` on its child's task: "a changed requirement for your NEXT turn". The child's provider turn had finished 90 s earlier, but its run was still settling (workspace copy-back). The comment queued a new run. 40 s later the settling run applied its `done` decision. The queued run was then cancelled with `continuation_task_ownership_changed`. The task stayed `done` and no run ever read the comment. The cancelled run itself is not shown as a failure (the task is terminal, so task chat hides it, and Sentry skips expected cancellations), so nothing told anyone the request was lost. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an agent on a task. While its run is still settling, post a comment from another agent with `resume: true`. 2. Let the run close the task (`done`). 3. The comment's queued run is cancelled as a stale continuation. The task is not reopened and the comment is never delivered. **Expected behavior** The task reopens for the explicit resume request, and the comment is delivered exactly once, as for a person's comment. ## What Changed - `deferUndeliveredCommentsOfStaleRun` finds, per owed comment, the comment's own `issue.comment_added` activity record: written by its author (another agent, not the assignee) with `resumeIntent: true`. Merged runs, whose wake is rewritten as comments join, therefore keep each comment's own intent. - `saveUndeliveredUserComments` also admits those comments (`explicitResumeCommentIds`). When only such comments remain, the deferred receipt records the agent as requester and carries `resumeIntent`/`followUpRequested` in its payload and wake context. The release drain's existing rule for an agent's explicit resume on a `done` task then reopens and delivers it. Person-comment behaviour is unchanged. - `doc/run-log-events.md` describes the rule. ## Verification - RED on `origin/master` (`1d67e309e0`): `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-held-comment-wake.test.ts -t "explicit resume comment"` fails: `expected [] to have a length of 1 but got +0` (the comment is never delivered after the stale cancellation). - GREEN: the whole file passes (29/29), including two-requester merged-run tests in both orders, the new negative test (`does not reopen a finished task for another agent's comment without resume intent`) and the existing person-comment and exactly-once tests. - Related suites `ownership-reconciliation-report`, `execution-continuation`, `chat-wake-conversation-batch` plus this file: 118/118 tests pass locally. One `afterAll` cleanup hook in `ownership-reconciliation-report` timed out under local machine load; CI runs the suite fresh. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` passes. - Not done: no restart-chaos cell. The harness posts follow-ups as the board user, which s9401/t72 already covers; an agent-authored `resume: true` comment needs a two-agent workload the harness does not have. ## Risks - Low risk. Only a comment whose own wake was an agent's explicit `resume: true` qualifies, only on a task an agent run closed, and only when no run read the comment. The assignee's own comments never qualify. - The ownership reconciler's durable backstop (`checkStaleDroppedComments`) still covers person comments only. If the fast path fails, an agent's resume comment is not recovered later. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, read-only staging API reads). ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
464e1de9b1 |
perf(issues): decide task reads for a list in one batch (#20858)
The task routes that filter several rows for one actor (summaries, lists, blockers, relation edges and the chat bootstrap) asked for one authorization decision per task, all at the same time. Each decision sent a task-row read and a copy of the task-privacy statement, which is more than 1 KB of SQL, so a request for 50 summaries sent 127 to 279 statements on every pool connection at once. The routes now ask the authorization service for all decisions in one batched read. It reads the task rows and applies the same privacy predicate to all of them in one statement, and reads membership, agent and run policy once. Within a batch, the authorizing user's membership is read once, and the boundary checks of a low-trust agent, which stay per task, run at most eight at a time. A request for 50 summaries now sends 22 to 28 statements (65 for a low-trust agent). Tests compare the batch with one check per task for 24 actors. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
381b862135 |
fix(native): let a finish through after one stale-result refusal; rebuild a missing instruction bundle (#20833)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A native Codex run ends its task with a Paperclip terminal call
(`paperclip_finish` or `paperclip_block`)
> - The Runner refuses a terminal call that the agent decided before it
saw earlier tool results (`terminal_call_before_results`). This protects
against stale calls held across a restart.
> - On staging, Codex cancelled a nested exec cell. Codex never sent
`item/completed` for one Paperclip tool call in that cell. The Runner
then refused every later finish and block in the turn, and the turn
ended with no semantic result.
> - The same-run recovery then resumed the run on a new controller
container. The run's admitted instruction bundle is stored on the
controller's local disk, so it was missing there, and runnerd failed
with ENOENT.
> - This pull request makes a refusal name a returned call once, and
rebuilds a missing admitted instruction bundle before the Runner backend
starts.
> - The agent-directory lock part of the same failure chain ("Agent
directory operation is already active") is fixed separately by #20829.
> - The benefit is that the agent can finish after one refusal, and a
resumed run does not fail because a deploy moved it to a host without
the bundle.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #20829 (the agent-directory lock wait and dead-owner release; this
PR does not change that lock).
**What happened?**
Staging Codex runs on Daytona sandboxes failed after about 30 minutes of
work:
1. Early in the turn, the agent called `paperclip_search_assigned_tools`
from a nested exec cell. Codex cancelled that cell. The controller
returned the result, but Codex never sent `item/completed`, so the
Runner never committed `tool.execution.completed` for it.
2. At the end, the agent called `paperclip_finish` four times and
`paperclip_block` once. The Runner refused each one with
`terminal_call_before_results` ("Those calls have now returned"). The
old call stayed "returned but unseen" for the rest of the turn.
3. The turn completed with no semantic result
(`native_finalization_missing`). Same-run recovery scheduled another
attempt.
4. On the new controller container, the attempt failed with
`runner_ingress_unavailable: runnerd process failed: ENOENT ... scandir
'/paperclip/instances/default/runtime-context-assets/bundles/<sha>'`
(one run) or `ENOENT ... lstat` of the same kind of path (a run during a
rolling deploy). In both, `<sha>` is the run's admitted instruction
bundle. The asset root is controller-local, and the new containers had
no volume.
5. The last attempt failed with "Agent directory operation is already
active" (fixed by #20829).
**Expected behavior**
The agent finishes after one refusal. A resumed run rebuilds its exact
admitted instruction bundle on the new host.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a Codex task that calls a Paperclip tool, then
`paperclip_finish`.
2. Drop Codex's `item/completed` for the first tool call (new chaos
fault `--faults PV2 --provider-fault-message tool_completed`).
3. On master, every `paperclip_finish` is refused and the run ends with
`native_finalization_missing`.
4. Separately, delete `runtime-context-assets/bundles/<instruction
digest>` and resume a run that pinned it: runnerd fails with ENOENT.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
8ab955776d |
perf(github): check the requester provenance of an issue list's review waits in one batch (#20851)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An agent can review a GitHub pull request. After the agent publishes the review, the task waits in review for the next GitHub reply. A later run of the same task can inherit this wait. > - Issue lists, issue summaries and inbox attention show these waits. For each waiting task, the server first checks the requester provenance of the waiting run (`chatRunSourceMessageId`). This check is an authorization check: it walks the identity-context lineage of the run and rejects a changed requester, another task, another company or another provider. > - #20673 batched the review reads and the publication reads of one list request. It kept the provenance check as one call for each waiting run, inside `Promise.all`. > - Thus a request with N waits still built and sent at least 2N statements at the same moment. The database is fast for each statement, but the server builds each statement on its main thread. > - On a hosted instance, a CPU profile of the server showed the main thread at 96% of one core. SQL text building, per-statement timers, socket writes and garbage collection had the largest shares. Connection samples showed 235 to 292 pool connections whose last statement was the source-message link read of this check, and 53 to 112 whose last statement was its identity-context read. > - This pull request checks the provenance of all the waiting runs of one request in one batch. The runs that need the same kind of read share one statement. Each run gets the same decision as a separate call, from the same walk and the same reads. > - The benefit is that a list request with 250 waits sends 17 statements, not 658, and uses about one quarter of the CPU time. The statement count no longer follows the number of waits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20673 (batched the review reads and the publication reads of the same request; this change does the same for the provenance reads that #20673 kept for each run). Refs #20551 (authorizes the waits of one issue page with one read). **What happened** `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits` called `chatRunSourceMessageId` one time for each waiting run, inside `Promise.all`. Each call sent an identity-context read and a source-message link read. A run that continues an earlier run also sent a parent-context read and a source-run read for each continuation in its lineage. `listExternalReviewWaits` calls this function for the issue list, the issue summaries and the inbox attention of a company, so each of those requests repeated the same reads for every waiting task. Evidence from a hosted instance (sanitized): - CPU profile of the server process, 30 s, 5 ms samples: main thread at 96% of one core. Building SQL text for select statements: 17.7% inclusive. The idle-timer restart that the database client does for each statement: 7.6%. Socket writes: 6.2%. Garbage collection: 13%. - Three samples of the pool connections (about 494 connections). 235 to 292 connections had the source-message link read of `chatRunSourceMessageId` as their last statement. 53 to 112 connections had its identity-context read as their last statement. - The `DISTINCT ON` review read that #20673 added ran about 29 times each minute. It runs one time for each list request, so each request started hundreds of provenance reads. **Expected behavior** One list request sends a number of provenance statements that does not follow the number of waiting tasks. The decision for each run does not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put many tasks of one company in review, each with an inherited GitHub review wait. 2. Open the issue list or the inbox. 3. Count the statements that the server sends. The identity-context read and the source-message link read run one time for each waiting task. The benchmark below does these steps on a local PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.ts`: - The provenance decision is now one walk (`sourceMessageWalk`). The walk asks for one read at a time and decides on the returned rows only. Its checks, their order and its error messages are the checks of the previous `chatRunSourceMessageId`. - The five reads of the walk (active identity context, source-message link, board message, parent context, source run) are defined one time in `provenanceReads`. Each definition takes its values either as literals or as SQL columns. - `chatRunSourceMessageId` (single run) drives the walk with one statement for each read, as before. The joins, the company scope and the filters are the same. The identity-context reads now select the seven columns that the walk uses instead of every column. - New `chatRunSourceMessageIds(db, runs, options)` (batch). It drives one walk for each run. In each round, the runs that wait for the same kind of read share one statement: `unnest(...)` of the request values, `CROSS JOIN LATERAL` the same single-row read with the request columns in place of the literals. Thus each run gets the row that its own single read returns, with `LIMIT 1` and the company scope on each join. The result for each run is `{ messageId }` or `{ forbidden }` (the 403 that the single call throws). A database error rejects the whole batch, as `Promise.all` did. - `server/src/services/chat-channels/github/review-wait.ts`: `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits` checks the provenance of its runs with the batch. A 403 still gives `revoked`. The single-run `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` does not change. - `server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.test.ts`: two new tests (see Verification). - `server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`: one new regression test for the statement count. - `server/scripts/benchmark-review-wait-provenance.ts`: the reproduction and the before/after measurement. It loads the pre-fix modules from `--baseline-ref` and fails unless both versions return the same waits. - `scripts/benchmark-github-review-wait.ts`: removed an assertion that `run-origin.ts` is byte-identical to its baseline. Both sides of that benchmark import the current helper, so the comparison stays fair. Without this change, the documented command of that benchmark fails. - `doc/DATABASE.md`: describes the batch provenance check and the new benchmark command. Statement count of one batch: the walk of one run does at most 3 + 4L reads, where L is the number of continuations in its requester lineage. The batch does the same number of rounds for its longest lineage. Each round sends at most one statement for each kind of read (5 kinds), for any number of runs. A request whose waiting runs accepted their GitHub comment directly sends 2 provenance statements. ## Verification Red/green regression test (`server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`): - `reads the waits of forty runs with the statements of four runs`. Before the fix: `expected { few: 10, many: 82 } to deeply equal { few: 4, many: 4 }`. After the fix: passes. Equivalence tests (`server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.test.ts`), on real PostgreSQL: - `gives every run of a batch the decision of its own check, in every provenance state`. 33 runs, each in a different provenance state, are checked with the single function and with the batch for five option sets (no options, legacy wake allowed, GitHub, GitHub with legacy wake, Slack). The test compares the decision of each run (message, `null`, or the 403 and its message) for: the full batch, the reversed batch, and a batch of one run. The states include the negative cases: a run of another company, a message that is linked only in another company, a message that is linked to another task, a conversation that moved to another task, a continuation on another task, a changed requester (run, identity context, continuation, board message), a link of another provider, a missing link, an outbound link only, a deleted message, an agent message, a rejected or pending identity context, a missing parent, another agent and a lineage cycle. The test also states the expected GitHub decision for each state, so the comparison cannot pass on two wrong answers. - `checks the runs of a batch with statements that follow the lineage, not the number of runs`. 4 runs and 40 runs each send 2 statements. 40 separate checks send 80. One continuation in each lineage gives 4 statements for the batch. - A mutation check: when the batch gives a row to the wrong request, both tests fail. Commands: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts` - Focused run of 15 test files that import the changed modules, their callers or the shared seed helper, including `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `chat-github-tools.test.ts`, `slack-authority.test.ts` and `issue-list-review-wait-authorization.integration.test.ts`: 482 tests passed. In `idle-completed-history.test.ts`, `afterEach` hooks (a `TRUNCATE` of the test database) timed out at 30 s for 1 test in this run and for 3 tests in a second run of the file, while other agents loaded the machine. No assertion failed. The three tests of that file that reach the changed code pass when they run alone. CI runs the full file. - `server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts` also uses the single check. It was not run locally (very large file). CI runs it. - Typecheck of the changed files and of the callers of `chatRunSourceMessageId` with a focused `tsc` program: no errors in these files. The full server typecheck was not run locally (shared machine). CI supplies it. - The first CI run of this pull request failed `ci / policy`: the module boundary check rejects an insert into the agents table outside the agent lifecycle module, and the benchmark seeded its fixture agent that way. The second commit seeds that agent with SQL. `pnpm check:module-boundaries` passes locally, and the benchmark gives the same statement counts. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 (broader verification required) because the change adds a file under `server/scripts/`. CI supplies the broad coverage. Before/after measurement: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx scripts/benchmark-review-wait-provenance.ts --baseline-ref=e2cf9a670fc5d5f5058fd0972beb71650f77c554 ``` One call of `listExternalReviewWaits` (the read of one issue list request). Embedded PostgreSQL 18.1, Node v26.4.0, `VACUUM ANALYZE` after seeding. One company, one agent, one GitHub repository. Every wait has a published review. Every tenth waiting run continues three earlier runs. 3 warm-up calls, then 15 pairs in alternating order. Both versions return the same waits and the same inherited wait for each run. | Waits | Version | Statements | SQL text bytes | Wall ms, median (min–max) | CPU ms, median (min–max) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 20 | before | 60 | 31,084 | 14.1 (12.8–19.6) | 13.7 (8.7–39.3) | | 20 | after | 17 | 15,847 | 12.5 (9.4–22.7) | 8.8 (4.1–87.1) | | 250 | before | 658 | 300,611 | 63.3 (58.1–89.6) | 78.1 (64.8–103.3) | | 250 | after | 17 | 17,171 | 20.8 (18.9–29.2) | 18.7 (14.1–27.3) | | 1000 | before | 2,608 | 1,179,710 | 256.0 (221.0–363.2) | 303.3 (262.2–507.8) | | 1000 | after | 17 | 21,695 | 54.9 (46.7–81.7) | 51.0 (41.6–72.2) | Of the 658 statements before the fix at 250 waits, 650 are provenance reads: 325 identity-context reads, 250 source-message link reads and 75 source-run reads. After the fix, 9 statements do the same reads. The other 8 statements of the request do not change. Sizes are set with `WAITS=20` and `WAITS=1000`. Other agents used the same machine during the measurement, so the maximum values have noise. - The batch statements use index scans only (`run_identity_contexts_pkey`, `run_identity_contexts_company_run_idx`, `chat_message_links_company_comment_idx`, `chat_conversations_pkey`, `chat_endpoints_company_id_uq`, `heartbeat_runs_pkey`). The 9 batch statements of a request with 250 waits take about 1 ms of server execution in total. - Wall time and CPU time are almost equal before the fix. This shows that the cost is in the server process, not in the database. Not verified: - The effect on the hosted instance. This pull request does not deploy. The share of the main-thread CPU that this path uses there is not known; the profile gives the share of all statement building. ## Risks - The provenance check is an authorization check. The risk is a batch decision that differs from the single decision. Mitigation: both paths run the same walk and build each read from the same definition. The batch read is the single read inside `CROSS JOIN LATERAL`, for each request row. The equivalence test compares both paths in every state. - A database error (for example an invalid UUID in a legacy task binding) rejects the whole batch. The previous `Promise.all` also rejected the whole request. The callers of the batch pass the native task of each run. - The statement count of the batch follows the longest lineage of its runs. A batch with one very long lineage sends as many statements as that run sent before, in sequence. It does not send more. - The batch sends its statements in sequence on one connection. Before, the reads of N runs used up to N pool connections at the same moment. - The single-run callers (GitHub tools, review publication, response comments, Slack authority, the finalizer, the status committer) keep one statement for each read. Their identity-context reads select fewer columns. - No migration. No new index. > 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 - Claude Fable 5.2 (`claude-fable-5-2`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (code reading, editing, shell, tests). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e625505ac9 |
fix(auth): preserve credential sign-in during server overlap (#20839)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls AI agent work across software updates. > - Authenticated instances must keep human sign-in available during an update. > - Better Auth 1.7.16 identifies accounts by provider and account ID. > - It creates credential accounts without the issuer required by the previous reader. > - A new account can therefore fail to sign in through a surviving 1.7.2 process. > - This pull request keeps the legacy credential issuer on trusted account creation. > - The security upgrade and provider/account uniqueness stay in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18906. **What happened?** After the Better Auth upgrade, a credential account created by the new version has a NULL issuer. A surviving Better Auth 1.7.2 process rejects its correct password because it selects only the `local:credential` account identity. **Expected behavior** A new credential account must sign in through both versions during an update. The new version must keep its provider/account lookup and uniqueness rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Apply migration 0465 to a disposable database. 2. Create an email/password account with the new auth mount. 3. Sign in to the same database through Better Auth 1.7.2. 4. Without this change, signup and new-version sign-in return 200, but old-version sign-in returns 401. ## What Changed - Register issuer as an optional internal account field with client input and response output disabled. - Set `local:credential` in the trusted before-create hook. Preserve any nonempty issuer supplied by internal code. - Leave unconfigured providers without an issuer on the new NULL-issuer behavior. No social provider is configured by this module. - Add credential integration and issuer-policy controls. Document the exact compatibility scope. ## Verification - Node 24: `node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs` passed using the existing build cache. - `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs packages/db/src/test-postgres-command.ts -- node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/better-auth-credential-signup.integration.test.ts`: 22 passed. - Separate local qualification used the actual cached Better Auth 1.7.2 SDK and the current 1.7.16 mount against one disposable PostgreSQL database. Before this change, old-version sign-in returned 401 for the new account. After this change, signup through either writer and sign-in through both readers returned 200. - The integration covers forged client issuer input, the frozen 1.7.2 credential selector, current-version sign-in for existing NULL-issuer rows, and the unchanged provider/account unique index. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: passed, including all server and test-tree layers. - The first required Runner support run failed three SDK proof suites because two generated lock references were stale on the current base. The existing generator corrected those references and the three suites passed locally (58 tests in 17.07 seconds). Master then merged the same repair in #20834 and advanced its runtime/dependency lock. This branch was rebased onto current master; the duplicate proof commit was omitted. The final diff contains only the four auth/test/doc files. The exact-head checks and review listed below passed on the rebased candidate. - Final candidate `577fd7612a6d80ac35e2f5ee9ea2ce9b77169687`: focused auth verification passed again (22 tests, 51.81 seconds). [Required CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43051216288) passed, including build, typecheck, server/Runner tests and all eight browser shards. One unchanged Rust process-lineage orphan-census test failed on the first attempt; the failed job was rerun after the workflow completed and passed. This PR changes no Rust source. - [Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20839#issuecomment-6799551882) is 5/5 on the final head with no actionable findings or open review threads. No deployment or original database change was performed for this branch. ## Risks The bridge applies to new credential accounts. It does not backfill existing NULL issuers or claim old-reader compatibility for unconfigured social providers. Trusted internal issuers retain their exact value. Account lookup, password checks, account linking, provider/account uniqueness, and migration 0465 remain with their existing owners. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with tool-assisted code editing and local PostgreSQL qualification. The exact serving model ID and context window 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
369e238295 |
fix(projects): make workspace storage the project's only placement choice (#20835)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A repository project gets its working files from core staging or from a workspace storage plugin > - #20459 reported that an installed storage plugin attached every new repository project, so sandbox agents could not use those projects > - #20587 fixed creation with an **Available in** choice that selects storage > - #20651 then saved an environment on every new project and used it before the agent default to place runs. That solved a problem that did not exist: the project needs storage, not a run environment > - Creation saves the first environment of the chosen group, so a project silently sends every agent's runs to that environment. Project Configuration also shows two controls (Environment and Workspace storage) for one decision > - This pull request removes the project run environment and makes storage the only placement choice a project owns. Storage is fixed at creation > - The benefit is that runs follow the agent again, and project settings show one clear, read-only fact about storage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20459. Follow-up to #20587 and #20651. Refs #11644. That issue asks for a project-level run environment override. This pull request removes the override that #20651 added for it, because the override is not necessary to fix #20459. #11644 stays a separate feature request. Related: #18176 (open) repairs placement through the legacy workspace-policy field. This pull request does not restore project placement, so it conflicts with the direction of #18176. ## What Changed - **Remove the project run environment.** Migration `0466` drops `projects.environment_id`. Run placement no longer reads the project. Runs use the agent default, then the instance default, then local execution. The low-trust task sandbox and the enforced sandbox policies keep their precedence. - **Keep the #20651 recovery and binding guards.** A recovered run still uses its admitted environment lease (source `run`). Company-binding checks before admission and during lease creation stay. - **Keep the creation choice.** **Available in** in New Project still selects storage. It still shows only when the environments need more than one storage owner. That can only occur when a storage plugin is installed. `POST /projects` with `environmentId` selects the storage of that environment and does not save the environment. - **Fix storage at creation.** `PATCH /projects/:id` rejects any storage change with `409 project_storage_locked`, from core to a plugin and from a plugin to core. Before, a core project could move to a plugin. - **Drop legacy writes.** Older clients can still send `executionWorkspacePolicy.environmentId`. The service removes it on create and update. - **Simplify Project Configuration.** Remove the Environment and Workspace storage selectors. Show an advisory **Available in** list of the environments that can use the project's storage. Show it when a storage plugin is installed or when the project uses one. When the project's plugin is not installed, show **Storage plugin unavailable**. Without a storage plugin, show nothing. - **Issue workspace card.** Remove the "project default" environment label. - **Shared contract.** Remove `Project.environmentId`, the `environmentId` project field, and `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` from the update schema. The create schema keeps `environmentId` and `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` from #20587. - **Docs and maps.** Update `doc/project-environment-compatibility.md`, `docs/api/goals-and-projects.md`, and the project feature and agent-access maps. - **SDK source pins.** Refresh `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` for the two shared files. The shared file blobs return to their values before #20651. The refresh also corrects the `pnpm-lock.yaml` pin and `lockSha256`: `master` pins an older lockfile blob than the one it contains. ## Verification - Targeted server suites pass (227 tests): `project-environments`, `project-workspace-provider.integration`, `heartbeat/environment-selection`, `execution-workspace-policy`, `environment-selection-route-guards`, `environment-run-orchestrator`, `openapi-routes`. - Related server suites pass (349 tests): `environment-service`, `environment-routes`, `plugin-workspaces.integration`, `issues-service`. - Targeted UI suites pass: `ProjectProperties.concurrency`, `IssueWorkspaceCard`, `NewProjectDialog`, `NewProjectDialog.managed-sandbox`, `ProjectDetail`. - New tests: - Creation saves storage, not an environment. Core and plugin projects both reject a storage change with `project_storage_locked`. - A legacy policy `environmentId` is dropped on create and update. - A new run follows the agent default for any project. A recovered run keeps its admitted lease after the agent default changes. - Project Configuration has no storage or environment selector. The note is hidden without a plugin. It lists the core or plugin environments for the project's storage. It shows **Storage plugin unavailable** for a removed plugin. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`, `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`, and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check` pass. - Not run locally: the full `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm build`, and browser suites. CI supplies that coverage. - Manual check: open Project Configuration on an instance with a storage plugin. Confirm that there is no Environment or Workspace storage selector, and that **Available in** lists the environments. ## Risks - **Migration.** `0466` drops `projects.environment_id` and its foreign key. The migration deletes the saved project environments. Apply it before you serve the new revision. An old server revision that reads `projects` fails until it stops. This is the same pattern as earlier drop-column migrations (`0229`, `0289`). - **Behavior change for existing projects.** Projects created after #20651 shipped have a saved environment that overrides the agent. After this change, their runs follow the agent default again. This is the intended fix. Before #20651, a project environment selection was not applied to runs (#11644), so no older behavior is lost. - **No path from core to a plugin.** A core project, including one created before a plugin was installed, cannot move to the plugin. To use plugin storage, create a new project. - **API.** A `PATCH` that sends `environmentId` or `expectedStorageProviderPluginId` no longer has an effect. The schema strips these fields. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) by Anthropic, in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). Extended thinking was available. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
1d52436bf8 |
fix(config): detect the tailnet bind host only when the bind reads it, one time per process (#20843)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server reads its configuration through `loadConfig()` in `server/src/config.ts`. Runtime code calls it often: `getStorageService()` calls it on each use, and the native runtime calls it for backup storage, response delivery and attachment reuse > - `loadConfig()` called `detectTailnetBindHost()` on each call. That function runs `tailscale ip -4` with `execFileSync`, which is a synchronous child process. The event loop stops until the child process ends > - A CPU profile of a busy hosted server showed this cost on the main thread, on a server that does not bind to a tailnet > - The tailnet address is an input only to the bind host, and only the listener that the server binds at startup uses the bind host. Most bind configurations never read the address > - This pull request makes `loadConfig()` detect the address only when the bind configuration reads it, and keeps the result for the life of the process > - The benefit is that a `loadConfig()` call no longer starts a child process on runtime paths, so the event loop stays free for requests ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. I searched open and closed pull requests for `tailscale loadConfig` and `detectTailnetBindHost` and found no related work. **What happened?** Each `loadConfig()` call started `tailscale ip -4` as a synchronous child process. A 30 second CPU profile of the main thread of a hosted server (commit |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0b8ba1ac92 |
fix(queue): show messages a booting run's first turn takes as sent (#20822)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Task chat lets a person send follow-up messages to a running agent, and steer them into the live turn > - A sandboxed run (for example on Daytona) can take minutes to boot before its provider session exists > - A message sent during that boot cannot be steered, so it waits in the steering pane > - The runner then puts the message into its first turn, and the server removes it from the queue, but the view has no signal for this, so the message stays in the steering pane as "queued" > - That stale local entry also hides the queue id, so Steer and Discard fail for every later message > - This pull request tells the view which messages the first turn takes, and drops local queue entries whose run has settled > - The benefit is that a message sent while the sandbox boots shows as sent at once, and later messages keep working Steer and Discard ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A person sent a follow-up while the agent's sandbox was booting. The message stayed in the steering pane with Steer unavailable. After the agent started, the message stayed there. The agent had received it in its first turn. Later, Discard on that message failed with "Couldn't discard. Message is still queued.", and a new message also stayed in the steering pane. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to a Paperclip Runner agent that runs in a Daytona sandbox. 2. While the sandbox boots, send a follow-up message. 3. Wait for the agent's first response. The message is still in the steering pane. 4. After the run hands off to a successor run, send another message and try to discard the first one. **Expected behavior** A message sent while the run is starting shows as a sent message. Later messages keep working Steer and Discard. **Actual behavior** The first message stays in the steering pane. Discard fails, and the new message cannot be steered until the page reloads. ## What Changed - `firstTurnQueuedCommentIds` (server, `first-turn-queued-input.ts`) returns the messages in a deferred queue that the target run's first turn already sealed, or will take while it is still starting. It uses the same eligibility rule as `claimFirstTurnQueuedInput`. It reads only lean columns, so the queue poll does not transfer run snapshots or large wake payloads. - The queue read path and the queue mutation path both put these ids in a new optional `firstTurnCommentIds` field on `IssueQueuedCommentQueue`. - The task view puts each of those messages in the conversation as input of that run, at its submission time, and not in the steering pane. - The task view no longer treats a saved message as a pending local queue entry after its target run is no longer live. A request that is still in flight keeps its original target. ## Verification - Red-green server test: `issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` "reports the messages a preparing/native run's first turn takes, before and after it seals them" and "reports no first-turn messages once the run's turn already started". Before the fix, `firstTurnCommentIds` was `undefined`. - Red-green UI tests: `IssueDetail.test.tsx` "shows a message the booting run's first turn takes as sent, not queued" (still starting, and sealed) and "keeps queue controls for a new message after the run that took an earlier one hands off". Before the fix, the queue held `['new-message', 'boot-message']` and the queue id was withheld. - Reproduced on staging first: the run's context held a first-turn receipt for the stuck message, and the server queue had no entries, while the view still showed it as queued. - `npx vitest run` for `issue-queued-comments-routes`, `queued-comment-consumption`, `queued-comment-postgres`, `queued-comment-use-cases`: 172 passed. The existing queue-poll byte budget tests still pass. - `npx vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx src/components/task-chat src/lib/issue-queued-comment-queue src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments`: 1288 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` for shared, server, and ui: no new errors. - `pnpm verify` exits 2 because the change touches `packages/shared`. Required CI supplies the broad coverage. ## Risks - Low risk. The new field is optional and only for display. Delivery still belongs to the first-turn claim and the deferred wake. - If a starting run fails before its first turn, the field goes away and the message shows in the queue again for the next run. This is correct, because the deferred wake still holds it. - The queue read adds one lean run read and one comment read only while a deferred queue targets a running run. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser). ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
|
a4b872477e |
fix(chat): do not wake the assignee for a decision its own run recorded (#20842)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task can be bound to a chat conversation (Slack, Telegram). Confirmation cards are published there > - The assignee's running turn can record the user's chat reply as the decision on a card (resolve-from-comment). That run already owns the decision, and the in-app route does not wake the agent again > - The chat continuation worker (`interaction_wakeup`) still woke the assignee for that decision > - The wake waited behind the running turn. When it was promoted, the reply was already delivered, so its context kept `source: chat:<provider>` but no chat message > - Reviewed-chat attestation then refused the run (`reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`, `context_mismatch`). The refusal is correct; the wake should not exist > - This pull request makes the worker settle that action without a wake > - The benefit is no failed setup run on the task, and no change to any permission check ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20809 **What happened?** On staging, an automation-triggered run failed in about 5 s with `setup_failed` and error `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized` (denial reason `context_mismatch`). The task was bound to a Slack thread and was `in_review`. The assignee's previous run had recorded the user's Slack reply as acceptance of a plan confirmation and kept working. The chat continuation worker then queued a second wake for the same decision. That wake carried no undelivered chat message, so attestation found zero admitted comment ids. **Expected behavior** No second wake. The responding run already acts on the decision, as in the in-app path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind a task to a Slack conversation and publish a `request_confirmation` card with `continuationPolicy: wake_assignee`. 2. While the assignee's run is active, the user replies in Slack. The run calls `POST /api/issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/resolve-from-comment`. 3. The worker processes the `interaction_wakeup` chat action and wakes the assignee. The wake is deferred behind the active run and loses the delivered reply. With the task `in_review`, the next run fails attestation. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/chat-channels/interactions/continuations.ts`: when the current interaction was resolved by the assignee's own run from a comment (`resolvedByAgentId` is the assignee, `resolvedByRunId` is set, no `resolvedByUserId`, and `result.commentId` is set; only resolve-from-comment writes that), the worker marks the action `processed` with `interaction_wakeup_owned_by_responding_run` and creates no wake. Actions saved before the deploy take the same path. - `server/src/__tests__/chat-interaction-publications.test.ts`: real resolve-from-comment flow (no wake) and the board-accept control (one wake). - Reviewed-chat attestation and every authorization check are unchanged. ## Verification - Red on master: the new test fails, `wakeup` called 1 time. - Green: `server/src/__tests__/chat-interaction-publications.test.ts` 32/32 pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes. ## Risks - Low. Only a self-resolved, comment-recorded decision skips the wake. A user decision through a chat button or the board still wakes the assignee. - Not covered here: a user decision made through a chat button while another run of the task is active can still be deferred and lose its chat comment id. That is a separate case and is not changed by this PR. > 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 - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
81c9143fe4 |
fix: upgrade Better Auth to 1.7.16 with account migration (#18906)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The board uses Better Auth for credential accounts and sessions. > - The server pins Better Auth 1.7.2. > - The November security release fixes 12 issues in Better Auth. > - The new version stops writing the old required account issuer field. > - This change updates the packages and the database contract together. > - New users can sign up, and existing users can still sign in. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The server uses Better Auth 1.7.2. The [security release](https://better-auth.com/blog/security-release-2026-11-03) fixes 12 issues in 1.7.16. Earlier update PRs #17909 and #17911 target 1.7.7, which is below this security release. **Expected behavior** Use the patched stable release. Keep new and existing credential accounts usable. **Steps to reproduce** Read the server dependency pin. Upgrade it without a schema change. Better Auth then rejects the required account issuer column. See the [upgrade guide](https://better-auth.com/docs/guides/1-7-upgrade-guide). ## What Changed - Pin Better Auth to 1.7.16. The repository refresh bot owns the committed Core lockfile. - Make the old issuer column nullable. Keep existing issuer values. - Replace the issuer index with a unique provider/account index. - Generate the migration and retain the five newest schema snapshots. - Test new signup, new-account sign-in, legacy issuer sign-in, duplicate rejection, and separate provider identities with real PostgreSQL. - Update the database schema test. Test the historical issuer backfill separately. Verify upgrades over existing rows and rollback on duplicate provider/account keys. - Document the duplicate check and migration order. - Add the approved two-line dependency resolution step before the backup job’s frozen install. Leave the frozen check and backup tests intact. ## Verification - Core head: `af70282c7e24335b8688c8f3cc88fdf65045632c`; parent `0f1481e4462100357a7caa496b875cf0bc500d95` includes master `84fc67317`. - Nine changed files. The only workflow edit is the approved two-line backup dependency resolution step; no managed lockfile edits. - Migration `0465_better_auth_account_identity.sql` is three SQL statements; snapshot changes only `public.account`, five newest snapshots retained. - DB typecheck and 23 focused tests passed on the parent. Both real PostgreSQL migration/signup suites were rerun November 11: all 4 tests passed. Application source and tests are unchanged in this workflow-only commit. - The parent’s sandbox-provider lane passed all 205 file-sync tests but reported an unhandled EPIPE during the symlink rejection case; its aggregate verify therefore failed. No unrelated source change was made. The new head reruns the full applicable CI. - Reproduced the old backup install failure locally. Resolving manifests followed by a frozen install passed locally; restored the bot-owned committed lock afterward. Hosted backup qualification remains required. - Current-head CI and review are running; no final-head green claim or merge yet. ## Risks Apply the migration before the new server starts. Check for duplicate provider/account pairs first. Duplicate rows stop index creation. Keep separate users separate when resolving duplicates. The migration keeps issuer data. Do not restore its NOT NULL constraint while new rows contain null. No deployment is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Codex, with reasoning and tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context window. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
aaf1337c7b |
fix(slack): require mentions only for channel roots (#20821)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connects people to those agents through channels and threads. > - A mention can start a conversation without making the bot answer all channel traffic. > - The current setting also requires mentions on every thread reply. > - This interrupts an existing conversation and can cancel a queued reply. > - This change requires mentions on channel roots and allows replies without a mention. > - People can continue a thread without adding the bot name to each message. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Slack connection setting that requires an at-mention. **Current behavior** When the setting is on, a channel thread reply must mention the bot. The delivery and execution checks reject a reply that has no mention. **Proposed behavior** Require a mention on a top-level channel message. Allow replies in existing threads without a mention. Keep the current DM access controls. **Reason and benefit** A person can continue an existing conversation without repeating the bot name. **Breaking changes** Existing connections with the setting on will accept thread replies without a mention. The saved setting, default value, and API field stay the same. ## What Changed - Rename the control to **Require at-mention in channels**. Explain the thread and DM rules in the help text and operator documentation. - Keep the mention policy in the Slack module. Use the thread root and message IDs to identify a reply. - Call that policy from durable admission, wake authorization, and queued run start. These shared paths must enforce the same setting when a delivery resumes. Other providers keep their current behavior. - Update PostgreSQL integration tests for thread replies, DMs, queued deliveries, and combined wake inputs. Add tests that reject incomplete reply identity. ## Verification - Reproduced rejected thread replies and cancelled queued reply runs before the fix. - Passed 16 focused PostgreSQL integration cases after the fix. - Passed 71 tests on revision `31b1adede2b92bad24b8fa21b8f6fffa9bd26d04` after the rebase. This includes the full durable wakeup suite, Slack policy tests, and eight selected Slack delivery cases. - Command: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/chat-channels/slack/wake-authority.test.ts server/src/__tests__/durable-chat-wakeup.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t "at-mentions by default|thread replies without mentions|rechecks queued Slack|preserves running Slack tool authority|Slack channel mention policy|durable inbound chat scheduler receipts"`. - Strengthened the queued-root test to check the mention-rejection reason and content redaction. A temporary change that disabled mention enforcement caused this test to fail with the unrelated-message reason. The real policy is restored. - Removed the added source comments to follow the contribution rules. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 because the operator documentation is a global CI input. Required CI must supply the wider coverage. - Local preflight installed dependencies and built the plugin SDK. It could not build Runner Rust binaries because this environment has no `cargo` executable. The focused server tests run without those binaries. - Live Slack and browser tests were not run. This change uses the existing provider message and thread identities. - Required CI passed on `31b1adede2b92bad24b8fa21b8f6fffa9bd26d04`: [PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43035551294), including typecheck, build, server/chat tests, Runner checks, and browser E2E. Current-head Greptile and Paperclip reviews are both 5/5 with no open findings. ## Risks - Existing connections with mention gating on will now accept unmentioned thread replies. This is the intended behavior change. - A missing or invalid thread or message ID does not grant the reply exception. - No schema migration is required. Destination, sender, and company access checks stay in place. - The existing chat integration test file is large. This change updates its current Slack cases to reuse the full delivery and authorization fixture. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning and code execution tools. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6dd8611a2f |
fix(queue): keep tool action outcomes out of the steering queue (#20582)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask a person to approve a governed tool action (for example, create a Notebook page) before the tool runs > - Approve means run: the tool runs as soon as the person approves it, and the approval card then shows Executed, Failed or Declined > - After the tool runs, the server wakes the agent with the recorded result. When another turn is active, that wake waits behind it > - The composer queue lists waiting interaction receipts as messages. The result wake carries the approval's interaction id and status, so the queue shows "Accepted: Approve tool action" with an Interrupt control, after the tool already ran > - People read this row as an approval that is still not done, and Interrupt stops their current turn only to deliver a tool result > - This pull request keeps tool action outcome wakes out of the composer queue and out of its steer, interrupt and discard actions > - The benefit is a steering pane that shows only messages the person can act on, while the agent still receives the tool result after the current turn ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a person approves a governed tool action, the tool runs and its card shows Succeeded. When the person then sends a new message, the composer queue shows a row "Accepted: Approve tool action" with Interrupt and Discard controls. The row stays until the active turn ends. **What did you expect?** The steering pane does not show the tool result as a queued message. The approval card already shows the outcome. The agent receives the result after the current turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let an agent request approval for a governed tool action (`request_confirmation` with `payload.toolAction`). 2. Approve it. The tool runs and the card shows Succeeded. 3. Send a new message so a new turn starts before the result wake runs. 4. See "Accepted: Approve tool action" in the composer queue. ## What Changed - Add `isToolActionOutcomeReceipt` in `server/src/services/queued-interaction-response.ts`. It identifies an interaction receipt wake that carries a tool action (`toolAction` identity or `toolActionRequestIds`). - `findQueuedCommentWake` in `server/src/routes/issues.ts` skips these wakes, so `GET /issues/:id/queued-comments` does not list them. The payload projection adds only the tool action's `actionRequestId`, `toolName` and `toolActionRequestIds`, never its result text. - The locked by-id queue lookup (steer, interrupt, discard) rejects these wakes with `queued_comment_not_pending`, so a stale client cannot interrupt a turn for a tool result. - Delivery, stranded-queue recovery and the handback hold (`readQueuedInteractionResponse`, `hasQueuedInteractionResponse`) do not change. The agent still receives the result. - Add route tests for accepted and declined tool action outcomes. They check that the queue is empty, the wake stays `deferred_issue_execution`, and the issue still has owed interaction input. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts src/services/issue-queued-comment-queue.test.ts`: 137 of 137 tests pass. The new tests fail without the fix (the queue lists the receipt). - On a heavily loaded machine (load average about 25), the embedded Postgres `afterAll` teardown timed out once at 30 s after all tests passed. This is not related to the change. - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit -p .`: clean. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only filters the user-facing queue view and its by-id actions. - A tool action outcome wake no longer appears as an Interrupt target. Before, Interrupt could deliver a tool result into a new turn early. Now the result arrives when the current turn ends, as for other system deliveries. - #13160 refactors the same steering path. One of the two PRs may need a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, browser inspection of staging). ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4c04c20c9e |
fix(recovery): wake a parent whose refused completion waited on dependencies that later clear (#20803)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A parent task that waits on blocker tasks resumes through the `issue_blockers_resolved` wake > - A periodic dependency sweep sends that wake when a blocked task's dependencies become ready and no wake covers the current blocked cycle > - The sweep skips a task that its own agent blocked, because that agent waits on something outside the blocker graph > - A native completion that Paperclip refuses for unresolved dependencies is also recorded as a block by the agent's own run (`durable_dependency_blocker_bound`). The sweep treated it as a self-block. It woke the task only if a blocker later completed or finalized on its workspace > - When readiness cleared another way, nothing woke the task. It stayed `blocked` with no next action > - This pull request makes the sweep treat that refusal as a dependency wait, and count a "Recover saved files" finalize without a workspace as the blocker settling > - The benefit is that a blocked task is not a silent dead end: it resumes once, automatically, when its dependencies clear ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20728 **What happened?** A parent task had three done child tasks that block it. One child was still listed as "saving its files", because a "Recover saved files" finalize had no workspace. The parent's agent tried to finish. Paperclip refused the completion because dependencies were unresolved and set the parent `blocked` (`durable_dependency_blocker_bound`). After #20728 was deployed, the parent's dependencies were ready. But the task stayed `blocked` with no wake, no Retry, and no next action. A person had to post a comment to wake it. **Expected behavior** When the last blocker of a blocked task clears, by status or by finalize settlement, Paperclip wakes the assignee once. This also applies to tasks already blocked before a deploy that changes readiness. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Block a task on a done blocker whose workspace finalize is still pending. 2. Let the assignee agent's native run report the task done. Paperclip sets the task `blocked` with `durable_dependency_blocker_bound`. 3. Make the blocker settle without a later blocker completion or a finalize on its workspace (for example, a recovery finalize with no workspace, or a deploy that changes the readiness rule). 4. Run the dependency sweep. Before this fix it reports `selfBlockedSkipped: 1` and sends no wake. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts` (`wasBlockedByAssigneeAgent`): a native block with reason `durable_dependency_blocker_bound` is not a self-block. The dependency owns its wake. Other native blocks and agent blocks keep the self-block rule. - The same function counts a later succeeded `workspace_finalize` with `owningService: workspace_recovery` and no workspace as the blocker settling, which matches the readiness rule from #20728. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts`: regression tests for the refused-completion shape (one wake, no second wake), the recovery finalize without a workspace, and a safety case for a different native block reason. - `server/src/services/workspace-recovery-dependency-finalize.test.ts`: a characterization test that a real "Recover saved files" signals the dependency sweep for the company. This path already existed; the test keeps it. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: documents when the dependency sweep wakes after the last blocker clears. ## Verification - Red (unfixed `service.ts`): `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts -t "refused for unresolved|still holds a native block|recovery finalize without a workspace"` fails 2 of 3 tests with `selfBlockedSkipped` 1 instead of 0. - Green (fixed): `src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` passes 44 of 44. - Related suites pass: `src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts`, `src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`, `src/services/workspace-recovery-dependency-finalize.test.ts`, `src/__tests__/issue-recovery-dependencies.test.ts` (43 tests). Server `tsc --noEmit` passes. - `pnpm verify` exits 2 because a doc change is a global CI input. Required CI supplies broad coverage. - Staging evidence (read only): the affected parent's activity shows `native-status-committer` set it `blocked` with `durable_dependency_blocker_bound`, and no later blocker completion or finalize. ## Risks - Previous-release story: no persisted shape changes. Tasks already `blocked` with `durable_dependency_blocker_bound` and ready dependencies are picked up by the existing dependency sweep after deploy (it visits every blocked task at startup and on recovery signals). No migration. - Bounded: the wake uses the cycle-aware ready-state key, so one blocked cycle gets one wake. The sweep keeps its live-run, queued-wake, pending-interaction, and pause-hold checks. - No loop: if the woken agent blocks the task again while its dependencies are ready, the reason is not `durable_dependency_blocker_bound`, so the self-block rule applies. - The recovery finalize rule only applies to a finalize on the blocker task itself with `owningService: workspace_recovery` and no workspace. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, code search, test execution, read-only staging API 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
4d141cdf64 | Carry plugin task refusals and batch project reads (#20762) | ||
|
DottaandClaude
|
9574065a28 |
fix(workspaces): hand on a proven-unchanged preparation epoch instead of abandoning it (#20736)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A native run on a remote sandbox first restores its workspace's saved version, publishes that root as its dirty epoch, and only then starts work > - A restart that kills the run in that window leaves the epoch dirty. The ownership settle (`settlePreparationOnlyRemoteWorkspaceEpoch`) always abandons it: the root is forgotten and the retry restores the saved version into a new directory > - The saved provider session still names the old directory, which is what #20712 and #20723 now have to handle > - In the common case the killed preparation only restored the saved version and changed nothing. A durable proof for exactly that already exists (`proveRemoteWorkspaceUnchanged`, used when the next admission finds an ended writer) > - This pull request makes the settle use that proof first, and keeps abandoning whenever the proof fails > - The benefit is a stable workspace root across a restart during preparation, with no change for anything unproven ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20712 **What happened?** In restart-chaos waves, a server kill during a follow-up's preparation (right after the workspace restore published) made the ownership settle abandon the epoch. The retry restored into `<workspace>-<epoch>-<lease>` instead of the published root, and the inherited session checkpoint named a root that no longer existed. **Expected behavior** When durable records prove the killed preparation only restored the saved version, the workspace is handed on at that saved version and keeps its root. Anything unproven is abandoned exactly as before. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a remote native task to a saved version, then start a follow-up or continuation run. 2. Kill the server after the follow-up's restore publishes (crash point `remote_workspace.prepare.after_publish_before_provision`). 3. Let ownership reconciliation settle the dirty epoch, then let the retry prepare. ## What Changed - `recovery/remote-workspace-unsaved-files-settlement.ts`: before it abandons a preparation-only epoch, the settle calls the existing `releaseUnchangedRemoteWorkspaceWriterById` (lock the workspace, check the writer, then `releaseUnchangedRemoteWorkspaceWriter`). That releases the writer at its saved version (dirty false, writer cleared, location and root kept, baseline marked released, run reference set to `saved`) only when `proveRemoteWorkspaceUnchanged` holds. The proof requires all of these durable records: - the unchanged-baseline marker for this exact epoch, run and saved version. It is written in the same transaction that publishes the restored root, so a kill mid-restore leaves no marker; - no recorded process, process group, process start or provider session; - no execution-start run event, no native result and no native runner checkpoint (the controller writes one before every runner command); - no workspace operation other than the file-neutral restore, finalize and recovery receipts (provisioning and saves record theirs before they touch files); - every workspace repository already in the saved version. - If the proof fails for any reason, the settle abandons the epoch exactly as before. The existing settle preconditions (run terminal, still `preparing`, no finalization, no work-started event, no save in flight) are unchanged and run first. - `packages/shared/src/crash-point-registry.ts` and `remote-workspaces.ts`: add the crash point `remote_workspace.prepare.after_publish_before_provision`, so the chaos harness can kill exactly at this boundary. It counts only a preparation that published an unchanged baseline (a restore of a saved version), and it is a no-op unless a test arms it. `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` is refreshed because the registry file is a pinned SDK input. - Test `ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts`: a proven-clean epoch is handed on with its root kept, with no abandonment receipt, and the writer hold is free for the retry. These cases are still abandoned exactly as before: no baseline (an epoch saved by the previous release), a baseline for another epoch, an already-released baseline, a provisioning operation. A run with a recorded process is still neither handed on nor abandoned by this settle. Previous-release story: an epoch saved by a release that did not write the baseline marker has no proof, so it is abandoned as before. No persisted shape changes; the marker already exists on master. ## Verification - Red: with the release branch disabled, the new test fails on the clean case (the epoch is abandoned). Green with the change. - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts src/services/remote-workspace-snapshot-reuse.test.ts src/__tests__/crash-point-call-sites.test.ts` passes. `packages/shared` `crash-points.test.ts` passes. `tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - Live Daytona waves (claude, workload S1, the new crash point at the continuation's preparation (`:2` before the point was gated to saved restores; `:1` now), image built from master `e039be9202`, one task each): | | before (release disabled) | after | | --- | --- | --- | | Killed epoch 2 | abandoned (`workspace.remote_epoch_abandoned`) | handed on (`workspace.snapshot_skipped_unchanged`, epoch 2) | | Retry root | new root `…-4-ecf1c81e…` | same published root `…-1-33e93b90…` | | Retry `task.prepare` | 4598 ms | 4731 ms | | Retry restore / environment acquire | 1141 / 1381 ms | 1106 / 1478 ms | | Task result | done, no Retry | done, no Retry | | Stopped or orphan sandbox at rest | none | none | Preparation time does not change in this setup. The Chaos Lab environment uses ephemeral leases, so every run gets a fresh sandbox and a full restore with or without this change, and the killed run's sandbox is destroyed either way. The gain is the stable root, which keeps the saved session's working directory valid. ## Risks - Low. The release path is the same one admission already uses for an ended writer, under the same proof. The settle now tries it first. - A proof false positive would keep a root whose files changed. The proof refuses on every record that precedes a write, and on any missing or older-release evidence. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, 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 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
f25fee3532 |
fix(native): hash runner artifacts and run archive tar off the event loop (#20722)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - One server process prepares native runs, renews every controller lease on timers, and serves every request > - On a run path, the server hashed the 31 MB runner binary with `readFileSync` (more than once per run), hashed provider packs and harness backups synchronously, and ran `tar` with `execFileSync` (timeouts up to 60 s, one with no timeout) > - On a slow disk, each of these calls freezes the whole process. A 103 s stall on a hosted instance lapsed every lease. The last event before that stall was immediately before a synchronous read and hash of the runner binary (see #20694 and #20709) > - This pull request moves those reads, hashes and archive commands off the event loop. It computes the runner binary digest once per boot > - The benefit is that a slow disk delays only the run that waits for it. Turns also start faster, because the runner binary is no longer re-read for every run ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20694, #20709 **What happened?** On a hosted instance, the server process stopped for 103 s without a restart. Every controller lease lapsed, and two tasks needed a manual Retry. The last run event before the gap was immediately before `matchesControllerRunnerArtifact`, which does `createHash("sha256").update(readFileSync(controllerRunnerBinary))`. Four workspace restores were running at the same time, and file I/O was very slow (a 43 s archive hash, 20 s snapshot decrypts). The trigger is not proven. But each synchronous call below blocks the event loop for as long as the disk is slow. **Expected behavior** File hashing and archive commands on a run path must not block the event loop. A slow disk must delay only the run that waits for it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Make a remote runner binary slow to read (the test uses a FIFO whose writer waits), or make `tar` slow (the test puts a `tar` wrapper that sleeps first on `PATH`). 2. Call `resolveRemotePaperclipRunnerBinary`, `stageRemoteRunnerDirectory`, or `syncRemoteRunnerDirectoryOut` while a 10 ms timer runs. 3. Before this change, the timer stops for the whole slow step (814 ms, 1,764 ms and 3,379 ms). After this change, it keeps firing. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/off-loop-file-work.ts` (new): - `sha256FileStreamed` - `cachedFileSha256`: a streamed digest, reused while the file's device, inode, size, mtime and ctime do not change - `binaryTargetFromHeader`: reads 64 KiB; reads the rest of the file only when the header cannot answer, so the result equals `runnerBinaryTarget(readFileSync(path))` - `sha256DirectoryTreeStreamed` - `execFileBuffered`: `execFile` with stdin input, `maxBuffer`, `timeout` and `env`. It rejects on a non-zero exit, a timeout or a `maxBuffer` overflow, like `execFileSync`. - `native-session-executor.ts`: - `matchesControllerRunnerArtifact` uses `cachedFileSha256`. Each boot reads the binary once, not once or twice for every run. - The remote Claude daemon target is read from the binary header. - The bundled remote runner binary is checked by `verifiedBundledRemoteRunnerBinary`: the same checks and errors, with a cached digest. - Provider-pack upload verification uses the new `verifyRemoteProviderPackManifest`. It runs the same checks, in the same order, with the same errors. One generator drives both the sync and the streamed readers. - Harness backup build and verify on run paths use streamed digests (`buildNativeHarnessBackupManifestStreamed`, `verifyNativeHarnessBackupStreamed`). The digest format does not change. - `stageRemoteRunnerDirectory` (3 calls), `assertSafeRemoteCheckpointArchive` (3 calls) and the checkpoint extract use `execFileBuffered`, with the same arguments, timeouts and buffer limits. `stageRemoteRunnerFile` uses `readFile`. - `packages/paperclip-runner/src/live/runner-binary.ts`: the default daemon lookup (`resolvePackagedRunnerBinary`, used by the local and remote resolvers) classifies the daemon with `runnerBinaryFileTarget`. It reads the 64 KiB header, not the whole file. - `packages/paperclip-runner/src/live/bundled-remote-provider-pack.ts`: the release-manifest checks now live in one helper, `bundledRemoteRunnerRelease`. The sync `bundledRemoteRunnerBinary` and the server's streamed check both use it. - `native-codex-runner.ts`: - `resolveRemotePaperclipRunnerBinary` reads only the header. - The local `runnerDigest` uses `cachedFileSha256`. - New `verifiedBundledRemoteRunnerBinary`. **Ordering and atomicity.** I checked each converted call for code that relied on the sync call being atomic with respect to other runs: - **Checkpoint copy-back.** It extracts into a private `mkdtemp` directory. The replace sequence (`existsSync`, `rename`, `rename`, `rm`) stays synchronous, so no other run can see a half-installed checkpoint. This function already awaited a remote command before the extract, so this change adds no new interleaving with the target. - **Harness backup verify then restore.** The verify was sync, but the restore after it was already async. The window between them existed before. One owner serializes the turns of a session, so no other turn publishes a backup for that session while a turn verifies it. - **Staging and provider-pack hashing.** These read build-owned, immutable trees, or the private staging copies of a run. ## Verification - Red/green: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/off-loop-file-work.test.ts` - With `native-session-executor.ts` and `native-codex-runner.ts` from `origin/master`: 3 failed. The longest timer gaps were 814 ms (runner binary target read), 1,764 ms (directory staging tar) and 3,379 ms (checkpoint list, size check and extract). - With this change: 6 passed. The gaps stay under 400 ms. The same file also checks the digest cache, the header fallback, and the `execFileSync`-like errors (exit code, timeout kill, `ERR_CHILD_PROCESS_STDIO_MAXBUFFER`). - `native-session-executor.test.ts`: - The streamed provider-pack verifier returns the same manifest as the sync reader, and rejects a changed asset tree with the same error. - The streamed harness backup manifest equals the sync one. - The streamed verify agrees with the sync verify, for a valid backup and for a corrupt one. - Run together: `native-session-executor`, `off-loop-file-work`, `native-codex-runner`, `setup-readiness`, `antigravity-connection-probe` (1,653 passed). `run-completion.test.ts` passed all 153 tests. Its `afterAll` embedded-Postgres cleanup timed out locally, which is not related to this change; CI runs it. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` passes. ## Risks - **Turn start.** This change adds no wait before `turn.start`; it removes work. The first run of a boot streams the runner binary once. Later runs reuse the digest after one `stat`. - **Cache staleness.** The cache keys on device, inode, size, mtime and ctime. An in-place rewrite changes mtime and ctime, and a replaced file changes its inode, so a changed binary is hashed again. - **stderr.** `execFileSync` wrote a child's stderr to the server's stderr. `execFileBuffered` captures it. Tar warnings no longer appear in server logs; errors and exit codes are unchanged. - **Persisted state.** No persisted shape changes. Old saved state and new code (and the reverse) read the same manifests and digests. - **Not converted in this PR:** small metadata syscalls (`existsSync`, `lstatSync`, `readdirSync`, small JSON reads and writes, renames) in the native state machines. Some of these rely on running synchronously. Also not converted: the sync harness backup verify inside the sync restart-authority checks, and the sync stamp verify in `native-harness-backup-storage.ts`. Both are listed for a follow-up. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use, shell, and code 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 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 (code comments carry the contract) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
16024ffa2a |
fix(native): a same-boot stall never leaves a run waiting on itself (#20721)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native runs keep an execution lease. Restart recovery takes over a run only when it can prove that the recorded controller stopped. > - A stall (SIGSTOP) longer than the lease, with no restart, makes the executor lose its own lease. The executor then detaches for "the next controller" and exits. > - The next controller is this same process. Recovery asks the PID probe if the recorded controller is alive. The recorded controller is this process, so the answer is always "alive". > - The task then waits forever: `in_progress`, no Retry, an active run, and an active environment lease. > - A second gap: after back-to-back stalls mid-tool, the executor returns and nothing in this process ever looks at the run again. No terminal state, no recovery and no Retry. > - This pull request lets recovery recognise its own process. When this process no longer drives the run and its own lease lapsed, the prior owner is gone. The existing evidence checks then decide, as for any stopped controller. > - It also makes heartbeat schedule that recovery as soon as such an executor exits. > - The benefit is that a same-boot stall never needs a manual Retry. When provider work may have started, the run fails with a working Retry instead of a wait with no end. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20694 (the same class of fix for legacy `preparing` runs), #20529, #20691. **What happened?** Chaos wave `w-20261111T034105-s9330`, task t02 (Daytona, OpenCode, fault TM1). The server process was frozen with SIGSTOP for about 84 s while run `89a3922b` prepared. After SIGCONT, `native.process_start_requested` was recorded and `native.session.execute` failed after 118 ms: the lease renewal found the lease lapsed, and the executor detached and exited. From then on, recovery recorded `native.recovery.transition` "waiting for safe ownership evidence" with reason `controller_still_alive` every 30 s for more than 20 minutes. The run stayed `running`, the issue stayed `in_progress`, no Retry was shown, and the environment lease stayed `active`. Chaos wave `w-20261111T040439-s9331` (Daytona, codex/claude/opencode, T1, TM1). Three stalls of about 90 s came back to back, with less than 1 s between them. Each run was in a tool call. After the second thaw, `native.session.execute` failed for all three runs (lease lost, executor detached). After that, no run had any event: no terminal state, no `native.recovery.transition` and no Retry, for 20 minutes. The in-sandbox turns kept going. A single 90 s stall (wave s9340) stays green, because a later recovery signal happens to find the run. With stacked stalls, that signal can land while the executor is still tearing down, so it skips the run and sets no deadline. **Expected behavior** When this process no longer drives a run that it recorded as its own, recovery takes the run back. No turn reached the runner here, so the bootstrap restarts on the same run. When a turn or runner work may have started, the run fails and shows a working Retry. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native remote (Daytona) run. 2. Send SIGSTOP to the server during preparation, and hold it longer than the execution lease. 3. Send SIGCONT. The executor loses its lease, detaches and exits. 4. See that every recovery scan waits with `controller_still_alive`, and the run never settles. The new tests in `native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts` ("same-boot controller whose own lease lapsed") reproduce this at the recovery layer. ## What Changed - `claimNativeRestartRecoveries`: when the recorded controller is this exact process (same boot ID and PID): - If this process still drives the run (heartbeat execution or native executor registered), recovery leaves the run to it (`current_controller_preparing`). - If neither drives it and the self lease lapsed, the takeover is allowed (`current_controller_released`). The existing evidence checks then choose the outcome: bootstrap again on the same run when a durable record proves no command reached the runner, or fail with a Retry (`blocked`) when runner or provider work may have started. - An unexpired self lease still waits. A claim that has not reached its executor holds it, and it lapses by itself. - A run that this process handed to the next server (graceful drain `restart_suspended` record, or the in-process hot-restart handoff marker) stays with the next server. - `heartbeat.ts`: when the executor ends with `NativeControllerDetachedForRestartError`, there was no shutdown or hot-restart handoff, and this process's own lease lapsed (`ownNativeExecutionLeaseLapsed`), heartbeat schedules restart recovery for the run when the executor exits. Recovery then reattaches the remote runner whose turn is still running, restarts an unstarted bootstrap, or fails the run with a working Retry. - `claimNativeRestartRecoveries`: a self-owned lease that is still live, with no driver here, now returns a `retryAt` at its expiry, so the wait is bounded. - `heartbeat/shutdown-handoff.ts`: add `isRunHandedOffForShutdown`. Heartbeat recovery passes it to the claim. - `suspendedByCleanDrain` now uses the shared `handedToNextControllerSinceClaim` helper. Behavior is the same. - Heartbeat test: an executor detaches after its own lease lapsed, with no restart. The same process must take the run back. Red before (timed out, the run stayed `running`), green after. - Tests: five cases for the same-boot lapsed lease: bootstrap again with no runner command; fail with a working Retry when a runner identity was recorded; leave the run to a live in-process executor; leave a handed-off run to the next server; still wait for a different live controller. ## Verification - Red before the fix: the three same-boot cases returned `awaiting_evidence` / `controller_still_alive`. - Green after the fix: - `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-restart-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-native-restart-suspension.test.ts` - Daytona wave `w-20261111T050504-s9331` from this branch (same seed and shape as s9331: 3 tasks, concurrency 3, three 90 s TM1 stalls with about 1 s between them). All 3 tasks reached `done` with no Retry. Run `632f0564` (claude) shows the exact s9331 sequence: `native.session.execute` failed after 216 s, then `reattach_remote_runner` 0.4 s later (before the third stall), then a second reattach after it, and the turn completed. Two tasks are graded FAIL only on the T1 crossing check: their own fault landed after their tool loop ended (for example loop ended 05:11:26, fault 05:11:44). Their status is `done`, with no Retry. - `tsc --noEmit -p server` is clean. ## Risks - A same-process recovery scan can now claim a run that this process recorded as its own. The guard needs all of these: the self lease lapsed, no in-process execution of the run, and no handoff to the next server. A claim that is still on its way to its executor holds a live lease, so it is not taken twice. - Upgrade safety: the decision uses only the coordinator row and in-process state. Old saved rows are judged by the same rules. A new process never matches an old boot ID, so deploys keep the existing proof path. - No new waits or file operations run before `turn.start`. - There is still no ceiling on `awaiting_evidence` for a genuinely different live controller (case c). This PR does not change that policy. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edit) and extended reasoning. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d79b7f29f2 |
fix(heartbeat): bind queued card-answer interrupts to the delivered answer (#20698)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A person can queue direction while a task's run is active, then use Interrupt to stop the run and start a successor that receives the direction > - The queued direction can be an answer to a card, for example an accepted confirmation of a saved plan > - `explicitOperatorRunIdentity` verifies the click from the coalesced queue receipt before the successor run can start > - That check required comment ids in the receipt, but a card answer carries its interaction and no comment ids > - So every claim of the successor failed with 403, and the direction never reached a run > - This pull request binds a card-answer receipt to the answer that the successor run delivers, and to the user who gave it > - The benefit is that Interrupt works for queued card answers, and the operator identity stays verified ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14043, #14510 **What happened** A person accepted a `request_confirmation` card on a task while its run was active, and then clicked Interrupt. The active run stopped ("Interrupted to send queued messages"). The successor run was then cancelled with "Cancelled because the queued run cannot be claimed: Queued-message interrupt authority is unavailable". The coalesced receipt had the interaction id and no `queuedCommentIds`. The successor run's context had the same `interactionId` and the receipt id in `queuedCommentSourceWakeIds`. The chat eval `steering.interrupt-with-direction` recorded this. **Expected behavior** The successor run starts, receives the accepted direction once, and runs with the clicking user as its responsible user. A receipt that the run does not deliver, or an answer that another user gave, still fails closed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a run on a task. 2. While the run is active, accept a confirmation card on that task. The answer goes into the deferred queue. 3. Click Interrupt for the queued messages. 4. Before this change, the successor run is cancelled with `queued_run_claim_rejected`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/run-identity.ts`: the shared receipt binding (consumed `coalesced` receipt for the same company, agent and run; same task; `user` request from the marker's actor) runs first, as before. Then: - A receipt with comment ids keeps the existing rule: all ids must be delivered to the run. - A receipt without comment ids must be a queued card answer (`queuedInteractionId`). The run context must deliver the same `interactionId`. The interaction must be on the same company and task, with the receipt's status, and `resolvedByUserId` must be the clicking user. Then the run gets the operator identity (`queued_comment_interrupt`). Otherwise the claim still fails with 403. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-queued-run-claim-isolation.test.ts`: a successor of a card-answer interrupt is claimed, runs, and has the clicking user as responsible user. Two negative cases: the run delivers a different answer, and another user resolved the answer. Both stay rejected. Relation to #14510: that open PR fixes the same claim failure (#14043) by returning `null` for card-answer receipts, so the run starts without the operator identity. Its Risks section notes that keeping the operator identity needs a check that the actor resolved the interaction. This PR adds that check instead, so the successor keeps the identity that enqueue time records. If maintainers prefer #14510's approach, this PR's regression test still applies to it. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-queued-run-claim-isolation.test.ts`: the new positive test fails before the change (successor cancelled) and passes after it. The negative tests and the existing tests pass. - Suites that cover interrupt identity, each run separately: `run-identity` (37), `heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant` (18), `issue-queued-comments-routes` (129), `deferred-execution-receipt-work` (50), `task-interruption-query` (31), `explicit-native-continuation` (436), `run-cancellation` (8), `workspace-recovery-admission` (147), `wake-queue/adapters/postgres` (113): all pass. In `heartbeat-process-recovery`, the interrupt-named tests pass except `dispatches interrupted CLI input and cleans up early fixture exits`, which fails before any interrupt (the CLI child does not start: `controller_lease_lost`). It fails the same way on unchanged master on this loaded host (3 of 3 attempts failed at least one case), so it is not caused by this change. CI covers it. - `server` `tsc --noEmit`: no errors in the changed files. - Live chat eval `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.steering.interrupt-with-direction` at this branch (run 42938970466): passed. The old run stopped with "Interrupted to send queued messages". Exactly one successor run started, delivered the accepted card answer, ran with the clicking user as responsible user, and saved the approved single page and its delivery document. Before this change, the same case failed with the successor cancelled as `queued_run_claim_rejected`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds a verified path only for receipts that previously always failed. Comment receipts keep their checks. - If a different user answered the card than the user who clicked Interrupt, the claim still fails. The person who answered can click Interrupt. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use and code 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 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
ce3881f1b3 |
fix(skills): release a skill cache lock whose holder's deployment was replaced (#20688)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Run preparation publishes skill revisions into a shared runtime skill cache. A file lock serializes each publication. A lock whose holder provably exited is released at once. > - That check used `controllerProcessExited`, a PID proof. It fails closed whenever the recorded process space (host, kernel boot, PID namespace) differs from this server's. > - Every Railway deploy starts the server in a new process space. A lock left by a server that a deploy stopped mid-publish can never be released. Each later preparation of that skill waits 60 s and fails with "Runtime skill cache publisher is busy … remove it", until an operator deletes the file. > - The rest of recovery already uses one shared prover (`proveOwnerGone`). Across process spaces it accepts a replaced platform deployment on the same exclusive volume, or a stopped or fenced server boot. > - This pull request makes the skill cache lock use that prover. It was the last caller of the separate PID-only proof. > - The benefit is one rule for "the controller from a previous deployment is provably gone", and no manual file removal after a deploy. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A census of staging failures after deploys showed that `controllerProcessExited` always fails closed after a deploy, because the process-space hash changes. On `master`, the only remaining caller is the runtime skill cache lock check. The restart chaos harness restarts in the same process space, so the PID proof succeeded there and hid the gap. I did not find this failure in the staging run census. It is a latent dead end with the same cause as the census class. **Expected behavior** A lock whose holder ran in a deployment that the platform replaced on the same exclusive volume, or whose server boot stopped or was fenced, is released at once. Any other holder is still waited for. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the server on Railway with a volume. 2. Redeploy while a skill revision is being published (the lock file exists). 3. Prepare a run that needs the same skill revision on the new deployment. 4. Observe a 60 s wait and `Runtime skill cache publisher is busy; retry preparation.` on every attempt. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `c444da7d05` (the new test fails there). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/runtime-skill-cache.ts`: `runtimeSkillCacheLockHolderExited` builds a local owner stamp from the recorded controller (boot ID, PID, process space, start time, and the Railway deployment and volume when recorded). It returns true only for the `gone` verdict of `proveOwnerGone`. - Same-space PID rules do not change. A dead PID is gone, a live PID with no start time is unprovable, and this server's own boot is alive. - `server/src/__tests__/runtime-skill-cache.test.ts`: a new test for a holder in another process space whose deployment the platform replaced. - The proof is bounded by the lock wait (5 s, never past the deadline). A timed-out or failed proof keeps the lock held. A proof still running is joined by later waits on the same holder, so a stalled read adds at most one database query per holder. - `server/src/services/controller-process-identity.ts`: removes `controllerProcessExited`, which has no caller left; its test assertions now check `sameProcessSpace`. ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/runtime-skill-cache.test.ts src/services/controller-process-space-identity.test.ts` (from `server/`): 31 passed. - New: "releases a lock whose holder ran in a deployment the platform replaced". It fails on `master` (`expected false to be true`) and passes with this change. - The same test keeps the lock held for: the same deployment ID, another volume, a non-exclusive volume, another service, and no recorded deployment. - The existing test "never treats age, another host, or a legacy holder as proof that a lock holder exited" still passes. Without a deployment or controller lease proof, another host stays held. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes. - `pnpm verify` selected 2504 of 3294 test files (the change reaches `owner-proof.ts` importers) and hit my 30 min local limit with no failure seen. Required CI supplies the broad coverage. - Live proof: not done (tests only). ## Risks - Across process spaces, a held lock can now trigger a read of `controller_instances` for the holder's boot. This happens at most once per second, and only while a lock is held. Uncontended preparation does no extra work. - The prover may fence a boot row whose lease lapsed past its grace, as it already does for every other recorded owner. - No persisted shape changes. Older lock files without a `controller` field stay held, as before. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use and code 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 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
a46b9ac724 |
fix(native): wait out an ACP usage limit's reported reset, then Retry the task (#20692)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs (Paperclip Runner with an ACP harness, such as Claude)
can stop because the provider account runs out of its usage allowance
> - The ACP harness reports this as a "terminal limit failure".
Paperclip blocked the task behind a board hold that called the session
state ambiguous, and the only way forward was a manual Retry
> - The provider also says when the limit resets, for example "resets
Nov 12, 6pm (UTC)" for a weekly limit. Paperclip read only clock-only
resets ("resets 2am"), so the agent-level wait fell back to one hour.
Each later wake for the agent then hit the limit again and blocked
another task
> - This pull request reads calendar resets, says on the hold when the
limit resets, and requests the task's Retry itself at that time when the
reset is reported and bounded
> - The benefit is that a usage limit no longer needs a person to click
Retry, and the agent's other tasks wait instead of failing one by one
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A native ACP run failed with `native_provider_usage_limit` ("ACP agent
reported a terminal limit failure. You've hit your weekly limit · resets
Nov 12, 6pm (UTC)"). The task went to `blocked` with a board-owned hold.
The hold said "Inspect the original provider failure and explicitly
resolve the ambiguous session state". Nothing resumed the task after the
reset. The agent-level `provider_limit_wait` recorded "no reset time was
reported, so Paperclip waits one hour", so every hour another wake
dispatched, hit the limit, and blocked another task. In one 48-hour
window on a staging instance, this blocked 7 tasks for one agent.
**What did you expect?**
When the provider reports a bounded reset, the task waits and continues
after the reset, like the existing `provider_limit_wait` path. When the
reset is unknown, the task fails with a clear message and a working
Retry.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native ACP agent until its provider reports a weekly or session
limit with a reset time.
2. Look at the task: it is blocked with an "ambiguous session state"
hold.
3. Wait past the reported reset: the task stays blocked until a person
clicks Retry.
Refs #20666 (other recovery work in the same staging census; not changed
here)
## What Changed
- `provider-quota-reset.ts`: parse calendar resets such as "resets Nov
12, 6pm (UTC)", "resets Jul 17th at 4:30 PM (America/Chicago)" and
"Resets on August 2, 9am (UTC)". A past date rolls into next year. An
impossible date (Nov 31) is refused. Clock-only parsing is unchanged.
This also fixes the agent-level `provider_limit_wait` reset and the
legacy `provider_quota` reset for these messages.
- New `native-runtime/provider-limit-resume.ts`:
- `readNativeUsageLimitReset` reads the reset only from the run's own
durable events. The last turn event must be a provider-observed
`turn.failed` with a `rate_limit` or `quota_exhausted` provider failure,
and the reset must be at most eight days out.
- `requestProviderLimitResumeRetry` asks for the task's Retry
(`requestTaskRetry`, `initiatedBy: "provider_limit_reset"`) on behalf of
the user who requested the run, or the run's accountable user for
automatic wakes. It is idempotent per run and records its outcome on the
hold. At most three automatic Retries follow one another without a
successful run.
- `registerProviderLimitResumeWork` is a scoped deadline owner (shared
work scheduler, no polling). Each active usage-limit hold is due at its
reset. Startup rebuilds it from the holds, and the executor notifies it
in the hold's transaction.
- `native-session-executor.ts`: for a terminal usage limit, the hold and
run failure detail say when the limit resets and whether Paperclip
retries then, instead of "ambiguous session state". The evidence records
`providerLimitResetAt`.
- `task-retry.ts`: accept `initiatedBy: "provider_limit_reset"`. Its
activity is recorded as system actor `provider-limit-reset` on behalf of
the user, like `restart_recovery`.
- `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the wait and its limits.
Previous-release story: holds saved by the previous release carry
forward. At startup the owner reads each active
`native_provider_usage_limit` hold. It rewrites the hold's message with
the reset when the reset is known and still ahead, and it requests the
Retry at the reset. Holds whose reset is unknown, more than a day in the
past, or that have no accountable user keep their Retry and are recorded
as not requested, so they are not read again.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run server/src/services/provider-quota-reset.test.ts` — 4
tests. Three fail on `origin/master` code (calendar resets return
`null`), all pass with this change.
- `npx vitest run
server/src/services/native-runtime/native-provider-capacity.integration.test.ts`
— 5 tests on embedded Postgres:
- the existing usage-terminal test (both replay modes) still blocks with
a Retry, and no automatic Retry is requested without a reported reset;
- "waits for a reported usage-limit reset and then requests the task's
Retry once": the hold says when the limit resets, an old-release hold is
rewritten, nothing starts before the reset, one Retry receipt is created
for the accountable user at the reset, and a second pass does nothing.
Fails on `origin/master` executor code;
- "starts the Retry from the hold's own deadline": a real delivery
coordinator rebuilds the deadline from the hold and calls Retry dispatch
once, after the reset;
- "leaves a visible Retry when no user is accountable for the run".
Fails on `origin/master` executor code.
- Focused regression suites pass (642 tests): `task-retry`,
`quarantined-task-retry`, `heartbeat-native-restart-suspension`,
`native-startup-retry.integration`, `provider-failure-classification`,
`heartbeat-provider-limit-wait`, `deferred-execution-receipt-work`,
`chat-run-publications`, `native-runner-restart-recovery.integration`,
`native-remote-retry-admission`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` passes.
- `pnpm verify` selected a broad run (exit 2, because the docs file is a
global CI input). CI supplies the broad coverage.
## Risks
- The automatic Retry uses the accountable user's authority for
automatic (system) wakes. It is the same Retry the hold already offered
that user, and dispatch still checks Retry authority, stop proof, saved
work and action reconciliation. It is never broader than a click.
- A provider that keeps reporting resets that do not restore capacity
gets at most three automatic Retries in a row; then the Retry stays
visible.
- The deadline owner reads all active usage-limit holds at startup
(limit 500 rows). The number of such holds is small.
- Not changed: the agent-level wait still holds new wakes for at most
one day, as before.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits, read-only staging API reads). Extended
reasoning enabled.
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
8c0dbffa70 |
fix(heartbeat): retry a legacy run whose lease this process lost before dispatch (#20694)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The heartbeat orphan reaper settles legacy (non-native) runs that lost their controller lease > - #16355 taught the reaper to retry a legacy run that a restart stopped while setup was still `preparing`, because revocation fences the old controller and `preparing` proves no adapter dispatch > - That proof was applied only when the lapsed lease belonged to a different boot > - A stall can make the current process lose its own lease while setup is still `preparing`, and its executor can end without settling the row > - The reaper then wrote "retrying once" but recorded no bootstrap evidence, so the retry was refused and the task was blocked for reconciliation > - This pull request applies the same revocation proof to a lease from the current boot > - The benefit is that these tasks recover by themselves instead of waiting for a person to press Retry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16355 **What happened?** On a hosted instance, one server process stalled for about 100 seconds (lease renewals were 42–46 s late). Several legacy `paperclip_runner` runs on a remote sandbox were still in setup (`executionStage: "preparing"`, no process id). Their controller leases expired. Some executors settled their own runs as `controller_lease_lost`. Two runs had no executor left, so the orphan reaper of the same process settled them 4 minutes later. Each run got `error: "Process lost -- server may have restarted; retrying once"` and `processLossDiagnostic.retryEligible: true`, but no `executionRecovery` evidence. `enqueueProcessLossRetry` then saw a run that needs reconciliation and scheduled nothing. The next sweep recorded `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` with `preserve_without_replay_v1`, and both tasks stayed `blocked` until a person pressed Retry. **Expected behavior** Revocation commits the stage. Renewal requires the old boot id, so no controller can move a revoked run to `dispatching`. A revoked run that is still `preparing` with no process identity did no provider work, whichever boot owned the lease. The reaper should record the bootstrap evidence and use the bounded retry. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Claim a legacy run in this process: `controllerBootId` is the current boot, `executionStage: "preparing"`, no process id. 2. Let its controller lease expire with no local executor (for example after an event-loop or database stall). 3. Run the orphan reaper. 4. Before this change: `process_lost; retrying once`, no `executionRecovery`, no retry, and a reconciliation hold. After this change: bootstrap evidence and a `scheduled_retry` successor. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat/recovery.ts`: `restartInterruptedBeforeDispatch` no longer requires the lease to come from another boot. The other clauses stay: legacy runtime, a stamped controller boot id, and `preparing` with no process id or group in the state committed by the revocation. Locally tracked runs and runs with a live lease are still skipped before this point. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: two cases in the hosted shape (assignment wake and due-monitor wake, `paperclip_runner`, prepared remote workspace, same-boot expired lease, `preparing`). They expect bootstrap evidence, a scheduled retry, no recovery hold after a second sweep, and no adapter call. A control case keeps a same-boot `dispatching` run held for reconciliation. ## Verification - Red on `origin/master` (source change reverted): both new cases fail. The monitor case shows the exact hosted shape: `retryEligible: true` with no `executionRecovery`. - Green with the change: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "lease this process lost|this process dispatched held|restart stopped before adapter dispatch|reached adapter dispatch held|lost monitor|older build without a controller stamp|failure budget"` (10 passed). - Related files, run together: `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `live-recovery-work`, `interrupted-preparation-hold-settle`, `resource-wait-stop`, `legacy-controller-lease`, `execution-recovery-dead-controller`, `legacy-process-settlement`, `run-failure-report` (876 passed; 2 timing failures under load in unrelated setup-failure tests, both pass when run alone). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` passes. ## Risks - Low risk. The proof is the one #16355 already relies on across boots: the revocation compare-and-set replaces the boot id, so the in-memory controller of this process also fails its next renewal and cannot dispatch. - A same-boot run reaches this code only when it is not in `activeRunExecutions` or `runningProcesses` and its lease expired. If an executor is stalled before it registers, it aborts at its first renewal. Setup work can run again in the retry; provider work cannot. - Upgrade safety: no persisted shape changes. The reaper reads the same fields (`executionStage`, `controllerBootId`, process ids) that older releases write. Runs that older code already parked keep their hold and their working Retry. - Runs that reached `dispatching`, recorded a process, or have no controller stamp keep the current behavior. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use, shell, and code 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 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 (the code comment carries the contract) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
a8f21a171c |
fix(cases): hold direct case status writes to terminal handoff authority (#20686)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The experimental Cases feature closes a case through a terminal
handoff to `done`
> - The terminal handoff lets an agent close a case only when the agent
owns the case's primary task
> - The direct case write routes (`PATCH /api/cases/:id` and the keyed
upsert on `POST /api/companies/:companyId/cases`) also write `status`
and `completedAt`
> - These routes did not apply the primary-task ownership rule to agent
status writes
> - This pull request applies the same ownership rule to those routes,
and sends `done` through the terminal handoff
> - The benefit is that a case closes only through the authority and
gates that the product describes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This is the bug description.
**What happened**
An agent that did not own a case's primary task tried `handoff_case` to
`done` and got "Agents may complete only their own case work". The same
agent then sent `PATCH /api/cases/:id` with `status: "done"`. The route
returned 200 and closed the case. A chat eval (`cases.close-case`)
recorded this sequence.
**Expected behavior**
An agent changes a case with a primary task to or from
`done`/`cancelled` only with the authority that the terminal handoff
requires. `done` goes through the terminal handoff, so primary-task
completion keeps its normal gates (`doc/PRODUCT.md`, Cases section). The
dedicated `update_case` tool already excludes `status`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a case with a primary task that is assigned to agent A.
2. As agent B in the same company, send `PATCH /api/cases/:id` with
`{"status":"done"}`.
3. Before this change, the response is 200 and the case status is
`done`.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/case-handoffs.ts`: add
`assertCaseStatusWriteAuthority`. For an agent actor, on a case that has
a primary task, a status change into or out of `done`/`cancelled` must
pass the same check as the terminal handoff (`authorizeTerminalTask`:
the agent is the primary task's assignee). A change to `done` then
returns 422 and names the terminal handoff. Board actors, non-terminal
status changes and fact edits do not change.
- `server/src/routes/cases.ts`: call the check inside the case write
transaction in `PATCH /api/cases/:id` and in the keyed upsert branch of
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/cases`.
- The terminal ownership denial now names the owning agent and the
primary task, and asks the caller to contact that agent on the task. The
message keeps its old first sentence.
- The keyed upsert falls back to the locked case row (not the pre-lock
read), so an upsert without `status` cannot undo a concurrent close.
- `server/src/routes/experimental-api-paths.ts`: add a catalog summary
and description for `PATCH /api/cases/{id}` that states the closure
rule.
- `server/src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts`: regression test for
non-owner `done`/`cancelled` through PATCH and upsert, the owner's
`done` through PATCH (422), owner cancel, non-owner reopen, and board
close.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts -t
"terminal handoff's primary-task"`: fails before the route change
(`expected 403, got 200`) and passes after it.
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-mutation-fence.integration.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-handoff-native.integration.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-handoff-legacy.integration.test.ts
src/services/case-handoffs.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/native-case-tools.integration.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-case-terminal-handoff.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: all pass. (One local
run of the legacy integration suite failed in fixture scratch
preparation under load; two reruns with the change pass.)
- `server` `tsc --noEmit`: no errors in the changed files. The fresh
worktree had unrelated errors from unbuilt workspace packages; CI covers
the full typecheck.
- Live chat eval
(`chat-features.runner-opencode.local.cases.close-case`, run
42936492869, at the first commit): the non-owner agent's terminal
handoff was denied with the owner named, and the agent did not change
case status through another route. The eval did not pass: the first chat
turn did not finish inside the scenario's 180-second observation window.
That is a separate latency issue in the eval.
## Risks
- Behavior change for agents: an agent can no longer set `done` through
PATCH on a case with a primary task, and a non-owner agent can no longer
cancel or reopen it. The agent skill reference already says "Do not
change case status separately".
- Cases without a primary task keep the old behavior, because they have
no owner to check and the terminal handoff does not apply to them.
- The check reads the primary task without a row lock, to keep the task
-> run -> case lock order. A concurrent reassignment can race one
request. The terminal handoff itself still locks and rechecks.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with
tool use and code 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 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e9db5e0d03 |
perf(github): read the inherited review waits of an issue list in one pass (#20673)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An agent can review a GitHub pull request. After the agent publishes the review, the task can wait in review for the next GitHub reply. A later run of the same task can inherit this wait. > - Issue lists and inbox attention show these waits. For each waiting task, the server reads the inherited GitHub review wait: the source comment, the latest review, and the review publication. > - The server did these reads one time for each waiting task. A list request with N waiting tasks sent N copies of the prepared review statement and N copies of the publication read. > - On a hosted database, the prepared review statement ran about 270,000 times in about 2.5 hours (up to 87 calls per second). The run identity read before it ran the same number of times. The list read that calls it ran only about 1,400 times, so each list read started about 190 review reads on average. No other caller reads the waits of many runs in a loop. > - This pull request reads the reviews and the publications of all waits of one list request with one statement each. Each wait gets the same result as before. > - The benefit is about 200 times fewer review statements and fewer pool connections for each issue list. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20400 (shares review-wait reads between the callers of one request). Refs #20551 (authorizes the waits of one issue page with one read; this change does the same for the inherited GitHub review reads of that page). **What happened** `listExternalReviewWaits` called `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` one time for each candidate wait, inside `Promise.all`. Each call sent a run identity read, a source-message read, the prepared `inherited_github_review_wait` statement, and a publication read. A list with N waits sent each statement N times. **Expected behavior** One list request sends one review statement and one publication read for each company. The result of each wait does not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put many tasks of one company in review with an inherited GitHub review wait. 2. Open the issue list or the inbox. 3. Count the statements of the database. The review statement runs one time for each waiting task. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/chat-channels/github/review-wait.ts`: - Split `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` into shared steps: the source comment read, the review checks, the publication key, and the published result. The single-run read uses the same prepared statement and the same checks as before. - Add `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits(db, runs)`. It reads the source comment of each run with the same lineage check as before. Then, for each company, one `DISTINCT ON` statement reads the latest review for each (source comment, task, agent) key, with the same joins, filters and order as the prepared statement. One read finds the processed publications. Each run gets the same result as a separate call: `null`, `revoked`, or `published`. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/external-review-wait.ts`: `listExternalReviewWaits` uses the batch read. The rest of the list and its authorization do not change. - `server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`: a new test reads 18 runs in one batch and compares each result with a separate single-run read. The runs include each revocation case (connection disabled or inactive, review state, review agent, repository, repository id, thread, publication, identity, company), a newer unreviewed head, no identity, no task, an endpoint of another agent, a run in another company and a duplicate run. The test also makes sure that the batch sends one review statement and one publication read for each company. The existing revocation tests also check the batch read. - `server/src/__tests__/helpers/github-review-wait.ts`: the seed helper can add a wait to an existing company and agent. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts server/src/__tests__/github-review-check-state.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-review-wait-authorization.integration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/blocked-inbox-review-wait-scope.test.ts` - Focused local run of every test that imports the changed modules or the seed helper (7 files, 335 tests passed), including `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `external-review-wait.test.ts` and `legacy-execution-recovery.test.ts`. The change to the shared seed helper makes `pnpm verify` select the full server suite, so CI supplies that coverage. - Local measurement on real PostgreSQL (embedded PostgreSQL, `ANALYZE` after seeding). One company and agent, each wait has 5 reviews and 10 outbound messages. "Before" is the previous list code: one `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` call for each run in `Promise.all`. "After" is `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits`. The runs alternate order in each pair. Both return equal results in every sample. | Waits | Version | Statements | Review statements | Median ms | Min–max ms | Samples | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 200 | before | 800 | 200 | 106.8 | 98.0–117.5 | 10 | | 200 | after | 402 | 1 | 44.3 | 41.6–50.9 | 10 | | 20 | before | 80 | 20 | 9.8 | 8.6–14.7 | 12 | | 20 | after | 42 | 1 | 6.3 | 5.3–7.0 | 12 | - `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` of the batch review statement for 200 waits: index scans on each join, 6.7 ms execution. The single statement: 0.05 ms execution and about 2.7 ms planning for each call. - The run identity read and the source-message read still run one time for each wait. They are cheap on the hosted database (about 0 ms each), and they keep the lineage check for each run. ## Risks - Low risk. The batch statement uses the same joins, filters and order as the prepared statement, and `DISTINCT ON` keeps the first row for each key. The array filters can also match a mix of two keys. The code uses only rows of exact requested keys. - The single-run read and its prepared statement do not change. The finalizer, the status committer, and the attachment reuse paths still use it. - Errors do not change: a 403 from the lineage check gives `revoked`, and other errors are thrown. - No migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (code reading, editing, shell, tests). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c444da7d05 |
perf(run-events): stop blocking checkpoint FK checks during event appends (#20670)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A native run sends a stream of runner events. The server appends each event to the run log. The runner controller then saves a checkpoint for recovery. > - Each checkpoint save inserts the new `event:N` row and updates the `cursor` row in `native_runner_checkpoints`. The new row has a foreign key to the run row in `heartbeat_runs`. > - The event append locks the same run row `FOR UPDATE`. That lock blocks the `FOR KEY SHARE` lock that the foreign key check takes. So each checkpoint save waits for the event append that is in progress. > - On a hosted database, the two-row checkpoint upsert had the largest total SQL time. The one-row (cursor-only) upsert, which has no foreign key check, was much cheaper. > - This pull request changes the append lock to `FOR NO KEY UPDATE`. Appenders still serialize. Child foreign key checks no longer wait. > - The benefit is shorter checkpoint saves, shorter waits before each runner ACK, and less lock wait on the database. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The controller checkpoint save for native runs (`nativeRunnerCheckpointWriter`), and the native run-event append (`appendHeartbeatRunEvent`). **Subsystem affected** Server run-event log and native runtime checkpoint persistence. **Current behavior** On one hosted database, Neon query performance showed this statement as the largest total: `insert into native_runner_checkpoints ... values (...), (...) on conflict (run_id, part) do update`. It ran 6,582 times at 62.6 ms (412 s) in the first 38 minutes after a compute restart, and 9,435 times at 31.8 ms (300 s) about two hours later. An earlier day showed 100,650 calls at 102 ms. The one-row form of the same upsert ran 965 times at 13.4 ms. The runner already writes only changed records (`captureCheckpoint` compares plaintext), so unchanged material is not rewritten. The two-row form is a new event row plus the cursor. Only the new row fires the foreign key check. `appendHeartbeatRunEvent` locks the run row `FOR UPDATE` for each native event, in a transaction with several statements. `FOR UPDATE` conflicts with `FOR KEY SHARE`, so the check waits for that transaction. **Proposed behavior** `appendHeartbeatRunEvent` locks the run row `FOR NO KEY UPDATE`. This mode still conflicts with other appenders, `FOR SHARE`, `FOR UPDATE`, deletes and updates. It does not conflict with `FOR KEY SHARE`. The append never changes key columns: `runUpdate` is limited to process fields, and the native and retry-exhaustion paths reject it. The fast path already uses a plain `UPDATE`, which takes the same lock mode. The execution-admission adapter already locks this row `FOR NO KEY UPDATE`. **Reason and benefit** The wait goes in both directions. A checkpoint save waits for an append. An append also waits for an open checkpoint transaction that holds `FOR KEY SHARE`. Both waits stop. The controller sends each ACK only after its checkpoint commits, so shorter saves also shorten the event loop. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat-run-events.ts`: lock the run row `FOR NO KEY UPDATE` instead of `FOR UPDATE` in the transactional append path. Add a comment that names the contract. - `heartbeat-run-event-atomic-append.test.ts`: add a regression test. An append transaction stays open. A checkpoint row insert for the same run must finish under a 2 s `lock_timeout`. A second appender must still wait. After release, the sequence is 1, 2 with no gap and no duplicate. The existing test with 40 concurrent appenders on two connections still proves contiguous sequence numbers. Update the existing lock-statement assertion to the new clause. - Add `scripts/benchmark-run-event-checkpoint-lock.ts`. It replays a native event stream with the real append and the real checkpoint writer on separate connections. It times each checkpoint save for a baseline append module and the current one. ## Verification - Red: with the old `FOR UPDATE` clause, the new test fails with `canceling statement due to lock timeout`. With the change it passes. - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-event-atomic-append.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-event-sequencing.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-runner-checkpoint-authority.integration.test.ts src/__tests__/native-recovery-notice-work.test.ts` (server): 4 files, 42 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm verify` exits 2, because a new script under `scripts/` is a global CI input. Required CI supplies the broad coverage. Local benchmark. Embedded PostgreSQL 18.1 on a laptop. 400 events per pass, 2 KiB event payload, 6 KiB header, real encryption. Order: warm-up, baseline, current, baseline, current. `HOLD_MS` keeps each append transaction open longer. It stands in for hosted round trips. | Hold | Pass | Median save | p90 | Max | Saves > 2 ms | Total save time | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 5 ms | Baseline (1) | 8.16 ms | 9.50 ms | 129.48 ms | 396 / 400 | 3,551 ms | | 5 ms | Current (2) | 1.44 ms | 2.08 ms | 12.66 ms | 44 / 400 | 677 ms | | 5 ms | Baseline (3) | 8.12 ms | 9.64 ms | 22.08 ms | 398 / 400 | 3,453 ms | | 5 ms | Current (4) | 1.50 ms | 2.37 ms | 10.54 ms | 80 / 400 | 700 ms | | 0 ms | Baseline (1) | 1.71 ms | 2.50 ms | 11.05 ms | 105 / 400 | 780 ms | | 0 ms | Current (2) | 0.97 ms | 1.42 ms | 10.28 ms | 22 / 400 | 458 ms | | 0 ms | Baseline (3) | 1.49 ms | 2.02 ms | 6.45 ms | 41 / 400 | 667 ms | | 0 ms | Current (4) | 0.91 ms | 1.24 ms | 9.80 ms | 19 / 400 | 420 ms | - Event order: the controller frame chain awaits each event's append and its local commit, but not its checkpoint save. The ACK goes through `#sendJson`, which queues the save and does not block the next frame. Only semantic inputs and command results await the save. So the save for event N overlaps the append of event N+1. Streaming events (`item.delta`) also go through the same locked append, with no checkpoint save, so a save can also overlap them. The benchmark uses this order. - Control without overlap (`SERIAL=1`, each save finishes before the next append, 5 ms hold): baseline median 1.15 / 1.07 ms, current 1.03 / 1.00 ms. There is no material difference. The gain comes only from the removed lock wait. - Results are the same in every pass. The script asserts that all event rows, the header and the cursor are stored, and that the run-log sequence is contiguous. - Command: see the script header. It needs a baseline copy of `heartbeat-run-events.ts` from the base revision. ## Risks - Low risk. The SQL change is one lock clause. Appenders still serialize with each other, with `FOR UPDATE` and `FOR SHARE` lockers, and with updates and deletes of the run row. Run deletion and key changes take `FOR UPDATE`, so they still wait for an append, and an append still waits for them. - The only new concurrency is with `FOR KEY SHARE` lockers. In this code base those are foreign key checks of child inserts. The one explicit `FOR KEY SHARE` read is on `issues`, not on `heartbeat_runs`. A foreign key check only needs the run row and its key to exist. The append does not delete the row or change its key. - The hosted cause is inferred. Neon shows calls and mean time only. We did not read lock waits on the hosted database. The local proof shows the mechanism and the size of the effect. A new query-performance window after deployment must confirm the result. - Persisted run state: no saved run, session, event or checkpoint shape changes. State saved by the previous release carries forward unchanged. The lock mode applies only inside one transaction, so a deploy during a run needs no special case. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local PostgreSQL). ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
81c52e3666 |
perf(chat): find terminal GitHub responses by issue run indexes (#20671)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The GitHub chat channel posts a terminal response when an agent run for a GitHub request stops. A background sweep finds acknowledged response comments (`processed`, not final) whose issue is blocked or whose latest run is terminal > - For each candidate, the sweep reads the status of the latest run of the assigned agent for the issue. It matches runs with `coalesce(native_issue_id::text, context_snapshot->>'issueId')` > - No index has that expression. So PostgreSQL reads every run of the agent for each candidate, and it decompresses the large legacy `context_snapshot` of each run > - On a hosted test database, this statement ran 13 times at a mean of 11 s in a 38-minute window (149 s in total), with single runs of 16 s and 41 s > - This pull request splits the run match into its two disjoint branches. Each branch uses an existing issue index > - The benefit is that each candidate reads a few index entries instead of the agent's full run history. The returned rows do not change, and no migration is necessary ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The discovery page query in `registerGitHubTerminalResponseWork` in `server/src/services/chat-channels/github/terminal-response-work.ts`. The query runs when the sweep reconstructs its candidates, and once or twice for each candidate check. **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat channel terminal-response recovery. **Current behavior** The `WHERE` clause has `issues.status = 'blocked' or (select r.status from heartbeat_runs r where r.company_id = ... and r.agent_id = ... and coalesce(r.native_issue_id::text, r.context_snapshot->>'issueId') = <issue id> order by r.created_at desc, r.id desc limit 1) in (<terminal statuses>)`. The planner can only use `heartbeat_runs_company_agent_started_idx`. It reads all runs of the agent, then evaluates the `coalesce` on each row. That decompresses the context of each legacy run. The cost is the number of candidates times the number of agent runs. **Proposed behavior** The subquery takes the latest run from two branches and then the latest of the two: - runs with `native_issue_id = <issue id>`, through `heartbeat_runs_company_native_issue_contract_id_uq` - runs with `native_issue_id is null and context_snapshot->>'issueId' = <issue id>`, through `heartbeat_runs_company_ctx_issue_created_idx` The two branches are disjoint, and together they are exactly the rows where the `coalesce` is equal to the issue ID. Both branches and the outer query use the same order (`created_at desc, id desc`). So the selected run is the same, including ties. **Reason and benefit** This statement was the largest single-statement cost in the hosted window after the earlier database fixes. A local reproduction is about 490x faster on the default fixture, and the gain grows with the agent's run history. **Breaking changes** None. The API, the candidate rules and the results do not change. ## What Changed - Rewrite the latest-run status subquery in the GitHub terminal-response discovery page as two index-backed branches (native binding, and legacy context without a native binding). - Add two integration tests for the sweep. In the first, newer runs of the same agent that do not bind the issue (one with a native binding to another issue, but a legacy context that names this issue) must not hide the stopped run. In the second, a newer active run with a native binding to the issue keeps the request waiting. - Add `scripts/benchmark-github-terminal-response-sweep.ts`. It captures the SQL that the real worker generates at a baseline commit and at `HEAD`, compares all rows, and measures both. ## Verification Cause and thesis. The cost comes from the `coalesce` run match, which has no index and makes each candidate scan the agent's run history. Thesis: if each precedence branch uses its own issue index, the cost of the page no longer depends on the agent's run count, and the rows stay identical. The benchmark confirms the thesis. Local SQL benchmark: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-github-terminal-response-sweep.ts --baseline-ref=7b33384446 ``` Fixture (synthetic): two companies, each with one GitHub endpoint and one assigned agent. Each issue has one GitHub response comment. The first N comments are acknowledged and not final; the others are final. Every tenth issue is blocked. Runs alternate between native binding and legacy context, and each run has a 4 KiB incompressible context. The fixture also has these edge cases: newer active runs with a native binding to another issue but a legacy context that names this issue, active runs that tie on `created_at` with the latest run (between native and legacy runs), and newer active runs of another agent. The benchmark compares every column of every candidate row (the page limit is lifted for this check). Embedded PostgreSQL 18.1 on an Apple laptop. The hosted database is Neon with different compute, so absolute times are local SQL measurements only. Each size has 2 warmups and then alternates the baseline and the treatment. | Size | Runs (both companies) | Candidate rows equal | Baseline median (range) | Treatment median (range) | Speedup | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Small: 200 issues, 3 runs each, 20 candidates, 7 samples | 1,372 | 26 of 26 | 18.7 ms (17.7–20.8) | 3.8 ms (3.3–4.3) | 4.9x | | Default: 1,500 issues, 8 runs each, 150 candidates, 7 samples | 25,300 (156 MB) | 200 of 200 | 3,697 ms (2,875–4,032) | 7.6 ms (6.6–9.6) | 490x | | Large: 3,000 issues, 10 runs each, 400 candidates, 5 samples | 62,600 (382 MB) | 538 of 538 | 57,055 ms (48,343–66,079) | 31 ms (16–79) | 1,800x | Sizes are set with `BENCH_ISSUES`, `BENCH_RUNS_PER_ISSUE`, `BENCH_CANDIDATES` and `BENCH_ITERATIONS`. The timed query is the real first page (limit 100). Plan (default size): the baseline runs `SubPlan` 270 times. Each run is a `Bitmap Heap Scan` on `heartbeat_runs_company_agent_started_idx` that removes about 12,000 rows by filter, for about 8.2 million buffer reads in total. The treatment runs an `Append` of two `Limit` index scans (`heartbeat_runs_company_native_issue_contract_id_uq` and `heartbeat_runs_company_ctx_issue_created_idx`), for about 3,800 buffer reads in total. Tests: - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t "terminal GitHub"`: 13 passed, including the 2 new tests. - Mutation check: when the legacy branch does not exclude runs with a native binding, the first new test fails. It passes with the fix. - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit`: passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is one SQL subquery. The match is the same set of runs: `native_issue_id::text = <uuid text>` is equal to `native_issue_id = <uuid>`, and a null `native_issue_id` makes the `coalesce` use the legacy context. - The candidate set itself is not bounded by this change. Acknowledged responses that never become final stay in the candidate set. Each candidate is now cheap, but the count still grows with that history. - `readGitHubResponseRun` in `response-run-state.ts` uses the same `coalesce` match. The sweep calls it once for each candidate row, and other GitHub paths also call it. Each call is a separate, smaller statement. This pull request does not change it. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic. Used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, and local PostgreSQL benchmarks). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
48c6e996da |
fix(native): continue a task whose quarantined completed turn's holds settle (#20662)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a remote run starts, workspace preparation attaches the verified saved work of earlier runs of the same task. > - Preparation failed with `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid` when any earlier run had a recovery receipt that it could not verify. > - A refusal cannot change the saved state, so every Retry failed in the same way, and the task stayed blocked. Recoveries must fall back automatically. > - This pull request skips an unverifiable source. It attaches nothing unverified and starts from the workspace's newest verified save. > - The benefit is that Retry and continuations start again, while strict receipt checks still decide what is attached, and no saved work is changed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20631 **What happened?** On staging, after the deploy that included #20631, a user pressed Retry on a task whose previous run failed with `native_controller_recovery_missing_evidence:runner_not_settled`. The new run failed in setup in under a minute with `setup_failed` / `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid` (`executionRecovery: bootstrap`, `providerWorkStarted: false`). The task stayed blocked. Another Retry would fail the same way. #20631 accepted one shape of this refusal (a source that saved only the snapshot its own restore loaded). This task had a different shape. **Expected behavior** A Retry starts. A source whose receipt cannot be verified is not attached, and its saved state stays intact for workspace recovery. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a remote native run fail before provider work and leave a recovery receipt or restore hold that does not verify (for example a receipt on an unsaved reference, a receipt from another epoch, or a saved reference without a receipt). 2. Press Retry on the task. 3. See the new run fail in setup with `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid`. **Paperclip version or commit** Staging deploy that includes `e3bc4ca798`. The gap remains on `master` at `a3b34a9d88`. ## What Changed - `attachPreservedRemoteWorkspaceSnapshots` no longer throws for an unverifiable source. Each of the five refusal shapes now skips the source and logs `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid` with a reason: `receipt_without_reference`, `reference_unreadable`, `receipt_on_unsaved_reference`, `receipt_unverified`, and `receipt_snapshot_missing` (was `remote_workspace_recovery_snapshot_missing`). - `retainRemoteRecoveryAttachments` no longer throws for a retained recovered copy that it cannot verify. It does not publish that copy again. The files stay in the workspace. - The writer check (`remote_workspace_recovery_writer_changed`), the workspace access check, and snapshot read and digest failures still refuse. - `doc/execution-semantics.md` describes the fallback rule. ## Verification - Red on unfixed code: `remote-workspace-recovery-receipt-fallback.test.ts` (moved out of `workspace-recovery-preparation.test.ts` to keep that file under 1,000 lines) "starts a Retry from the newest verified save when a predecessor has %s" (6 shapes: `receipt_without_reference`, `unreadable_reference_with_hold`, `receipt_on_prepared_reference`, `superseded_snapshot_with_hold`, `receipt_from_other_epoch`, `receipt_for_other_run`). All 6 failed with `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid`. The source is a native run that failed with `runner_not_settled`, and the writer is a Retry (`retryOfRunId`, `taskRetryRequestId`) that follows the real ancestry query. - Green: the same 6 tests pass. They also assert that nothing is attached, and that the source run row, its workspace operations, and its snapshot row are unchanged. - Updated safety tests: the canonical-attachment fault matrix now expects no attachment for receipt faults, and still expects a refusal for a missing or corrupt archive and for a wrong company or task. The retained-history test expects an unverifiable retained copy to be left out of the published list, while verified copies stay published. - `npx vitest run src/services/remote-workspace-recovery-receipt-fallback.test.ts src/services/workspace-recovery-preparation.test.ts`: 91 passed. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2, because a global doc input changed (`doc/execution-semantics.md`). Required CI supplies the broad coverage. - Not verified live on Daytona. I could not read the staging rows for this task: the browser had no free tab. The tests cover every refusal shape of this function, so the exact staging shape is one of them. ## Risks - Previous-release state: the rule reads the same rows as before (run reference, result hold, workspace operations, recovery actions, snapshots). Rows that earlier releases saved carry forward. No migration. A blocked task recovers on its next Retry or wake. - A Retry can now start without files from an unverifiable source. Those files are not lost: the source's snapshot, restore hold, receipts and recovery action stay unchanged, and workspace recovery still owns them. The skip is logged with a named reason. - A retained copy that fails verification is dropped from the published list. Its directory stays in the workspace and is no longer retired automatically. - A missing or corrupt snapshot archive still refuses. A permanently lost archive therefore still blocks attach. This PR does not change that. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). Extended reasoning enabled. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
9296c74e8d |
fix(native): let a restart claim take back its lapsed lease at budget admission (#20650)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - After a control-plane restart, restart recovery claims an interrupted native run (`resume_dead_runner`) and grants a 20-minute lease. Budget admission then re-checks that the claim still owns the run before the resumed run may start provider work. > - A host sleep, or the restart-chaos fault TM2, can make that stored lease look expired while its owner is alive. #20625 lets the owner take back such a lease when the row still shows exactly its own claim. That rule did not cover budget admission. > - So a claim whose lease lapsed before dispatch was refused with `Native recovery no longer owns provider dispatch`. The run failed with `adapter_failed`, recovery held it with `native_continuation_requires_reconciliation`, and the user had to click Retry. > - This pull request applies the #20625 rule in budget admission: the claim takes its lease back through the existing re-acquire condition. > - The benefit is that a run resumed after a restart survives a time jump before dispatch with no Retry. Every fence and every budget check stays the same. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20625, #20474 **What happened?** Restart-chaos wave L7 (seed 9107, local) on a branch with #20625, task codex B5 TM2. A TM3 restart claimed the run (`resume_dead_runner`, generation 2). TM2 then aged every database time by one hour before the resume reached dispatch. Budget admission (`lockRunBudgetRecoveryOwnerInTransaction`) required a live lease and threw `Native recovery no longer owns provider dispatch`. The run failed with `adapter_failed`, recovery stopped with `native_continuation_requires_reconciliation` / `preserve_without_replay_v1`, and the task needed Retry. **Expected behavior** The claim's own lapsed lease is taken back, and the resume is admitted when the budget allows it. **Steps to reproduce** `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs tests/restart-chaos/main.ts --env local --adapters codex,claude --workloads A1,B5,C1 --faults TM1,TM2,TM3 --time-age-hours 1 --concurrency 3 --tasks 6 --seed 9107` (timing-dependent). ## What Changed - `native-execution-lease.ts`: two new helpers. Both use the #20625 own-claim rule. Neither takes a lock out of order. - `readOwnNativeRecoveryClaimLease` (read-only) returns `live`, `lapsed_own_claim` or `lost`. It compares the lease against the database clock. A lapsed lease counts as `lapsed_own_claim` only when all of these hold: - the same lease owner; - this process's controller boot, pid and process start; - a non-null `recovery_state`; - `nativeExecutionLeaseHeldCondition({ remote: false, controllerGeneration })`, which applies the #20625 own-claim rule and every #20474 untouched check; - no non-local environment lease on the run. - `extendOwnNativeRecoveryClaimInTransaction` extends such a lease by the local execution TTL, with one conditional UPDATE on the same predicate. - `budget-reservations.ts`: - `lockRunBudgetRecoveryOwnerInTransaction` still refuses another owner, and refuses a lapsed lease unless it is the run's own untouched claim. It no longer locks the run row, so the documented coordinator → issue → run order holds. - The lease is extended only at the end of an admitted reservation (`reserveRunBudget`) or an admitted dispatch recheck (`recheckRunBudgetReservationInTransaction`). At those points the caller already holds the run row lock. A refused admission, for example one over budget, leaves the lease lapsed. - `heartbeat-native-restart-suspension.test.ts`: the test "still settles a recovery whose claim merely expired" encoded "expired means not the owner". #20474 and #20625 changed that rule for an untouched own claim. The test now has two cases: - an expired claim that another actor recorded on (`awaiting_evidence`) still settles with no provider session; - an untouched expired claim is dispatched. - `doc/plans/2026-11-09-explicit-native-lease-claim-tokens.md`: Step 1 lists the new user of the rule. ## Verification - New `server/src/__tests__/native-recovery-dispatch-lease-reacquire.test.ts`: - `reserveRunBudget` takes back the claim's own lapsed lease and admits the resume. This fails before the change. - An over-budget resume is still refused, and its lease stays lapsed. - Fenced variants each throw `Native recovery no longer owns provider dispatch` and leave the row unchanged: a graceful-shutdown suspension, an appended failure settlement, `awaiting_evidence`, `blocked`, a claim from an earlier generation, another boot, a remote sandbox lease, and another lease owner. - At the dispatch gate (`recheckRunBudgetReservationInTransaction`), an admitted own claim gets its lease extended, and a fenced claim is refused with the row unchanged. - Related suites pass (308 tests): `native-execution-lease-reacquire.test.ts`, `closed-native-receipt-accounting.test.ts`, `heartbeat-native-predispatch-retry.test.ts`, `run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.test.ts`, `heartbeat-native-restart-suspension.test.ts` and `heartbeat-restart-claim-lapse.test.ts`. - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` passes. - Live: one L7 wave (seed 9107) ran on the first commit of this branch (`w-20261110T212307-s9107`). It logged 0 `Native recovery no longer owns provider dispatch` refusals, against 1 in the previous wave. Codex B5 TM2 got past dispatch, but it still needed Retry for another reason: after a `runner.drain` timeout, the scheduled same-run resume did not send the continuation of #20645. That case is tracked separately. The other five tasks passed. ## Risks - This widens when a restart claim can take back its own lapsed lease, and only at budget admission. It is local only. It needs the same owner, boot and generation, and the row must show exactly that claim. A claim that any other actor touched still fails as before. - Budget hard-stop behaviour is unchanged. The lease is extended only after budget admission passes. - No schema change and no migration. Rows saved by earlier releases carry the same history shape. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). Extended reasoning. ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |