2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	8373d78679	fix(recovery): register missing native preservation on Retry (#17800) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and their saved work. > - Native runs can leave a prepared remote workspace after a control deadline. > - The deadline repair in #17788 records preservation for future failures. > - Older failed runs can still have an active lease without a preservation owner. > - Retry correctly refuses another executor, but nothing can finish the missing preservation. > - This pull request registers the exact prepared source through the existing recovery services when the user retries. > - The bounded maintenance worker can then stop the provider and save its files before normal admission continues. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A historical failed native run has a prepared workspace and an active retained allocation. It has no workspace preservation record. Ordinary Retry cannot prove that the old executor stopped and has no maintenance owner to produce that proof. **Expected behavior** A deliberate Retry registers missing preservation for the exact unowned source. Existing recovery proves termination and saves the files. Existing admission then checks current user authority, effects, pause and budget gates before one successor can enter the queue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist a failed native run with a prepared workspace, an active lease and a terminal, unowned finalization. 2. Omit the workspace preservation record, as an older deadline handler did. 3. Call the normal task Retry route. Before this fix, preservation remains absent and Retry cannot continue. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression fails on `46de15ff4b99bbee59c38f32f4f30b80ad5bbd24`, which already includes #17788. Related: Refs #17788 (future deadline failures), #17741 (committed recovery wakes), #17733 (connected Retry authority). #17773 adds source diagnostics and does not repair this missing registration. ## What Changed - Use native workspace preservation inside the existing issue-locked Retry transaction. A live finalization owner remains held. - Adopt a valid unowned preservation obligation through the existing bounded maintenance service. Bind it to the deliberate Retry intent without resetting an active generation. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for exact, mismatched and owned sources. Verify that registration cannot create a termination receipt or a successor. - Exercise the HTTP route, worker, real temporary file merge and queue admission with the stop reply held. Duplicate requests admit one queued turn after preservation. - Extend connected GitHub and Telegram Retry coverage for missing historical preservation. Document the contract and access boundaries. ## Verification - Red: the new historical-state regression fails on the base commit because `workspaceRestoreRecovery` remains absent. The mismatched and owned negative controls pass. - Green: the three focused historical-state cases pass with the fix against isolated local PostgreSQL 17. - The local HTTP journey restores saved files and retains newer host edits. It admits no successor while the provider stop reply is held. It admits one successor after verified preservation. The real GitHub and Telegram admission paths wait behind that recovery. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Green: 152 tests across four relevant suites, including all connected Retry safety cases. The six new cases pass again on final head `b8900801a3181fa673ea45f1129f968bbb08d1fd`. - Final-head GitHub checks: 55 successful, two intentionally skipped Storybook checks, and one neutral Paperclip bot review. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The Paperclip bot stopped before finishing and supplied no approval. - The full local command imported an earlier fixture revision before its assertions were corrected. It reported those two stale connected-fixture assertions and later hit the host PostgreSQL semaphore limit again. It was stopped after final-head CI completed. It is not counted as a full local pass; the complete CI test lanes passed on the final head. - The first local rerun hit the Mac PostgreSQL semaphore limit before assertions. Verification moved to an isolated disposable PostgreSQL container. Early assembled fixtures also exposed the existing destruction-cleanup gate; the retained-workspace fixture now uses its actual `keep_running` disposition. This fix does not weaken cleanup. ## Risks - Retry now registers maintenance for historical native failures. Exact descriptor, allocation and coordinator checks remain owned by the existing preservation service. Physical recovery still requires its existing exclusive owner and provider stop receipt. Registration alone grants no execution authority. - No database migration or provider protocol changes. No model, trust, assignment, retry-budget or external identity changes. - Local recovery uses real database, filesystem, HTTP, worker and admission code. Only the provider lifecycle boundary is simulated. No hosted allocation or live model turn has been verified for this new change. - The workspace recovery test file crosses 1,000 lines because this case shares its real database, filesystem and assembled route fixture. Keeping it there avoids duplicating that fixture or extracting unrelated production behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-26 16:22:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00