mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-11 05:11:49 +01:00
66e8fab9447aa21350f87ddec79fcd027f3e23ad
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
3ebd7bc0c9 |
test: isolate accounting fixtures and include all adapter suites (#14989)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a68f3d8e35 |
fix(runner-e2e): align Daytona image and provider pack provenance (#13814)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Daytona runner image provides the native runner and its provider package. > - The controller also sends a provider package to native Daytona cells when the image package does not match. > - A stale image and a package from another source revision caused a 1.8 GB upload before Claude could run. > - This pull request refreshes the reviewed lock checksum and documents how to reuse the exact package from an immutable image. > - The benefit is a reproducible setup path and clear evidence when image and package provenance do not match. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Daytona native Claude run used image source revision `45c99a0d06cbd5b04982b06b79de321149930ac5` with a controller provider package from revision `294853dc...`. Runtime verification rejected the image package and staged a large package upload before model execution. A hosted campaign also failed during image setup because the Dockerfile expected lock checksum `d7d96cf0...` while the resolved lockfile checksum was `4b796c312833ebf2be4c38228babc0292c76774fb40d43bd18b54bd6b205753d`. Related public work reviewed: [#12795](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12795), [#12862](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12862), and [#12887](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12887). **Expected behavior** The Daytona image and controller provider package must come from the same verified build. A package extracted from the immutable image must pass the existing manifest, source revision, lockfile, binary, bridge, and artifact checks before a native Claude run starts. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `PAPERCLIP_E2E_DAYTONA_IMAGE` to the old immutable image digest. 2. Set `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_REMOTE_PROVIDER_PACK_PATH` to a package built from a different source revision. 3. Run a native Claude Daytona cell. 4. Observe provider package verification failure followed by the large staging upload. 5. Build the image with the stale Dockerfile lock checksum and observe the checksum failure. **Paperclip version or commit** `3b8df3dcd6f99e99277faa45f3351989edb5c239`. **Deployment mode** Daytona native runner E2E. **Install method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Claude Code through the native ACPX runner. **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Not applicable to the setup failure. ## What Changed - Refreshed `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_LOCK_SHA256` in `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` to the resolved lockfile checksum. - Added a local guide for extracting the provider package from an immutable verified image with Docker. - Documented the required provenance checks and the expected manifest-matched runtime log. - Documented that cold package upload coverage must remain separate from recovery coverage. - Pinned the preview-service test guest to the test runner’s Node executable and logged guest startup and bound ports for readiness diagnostics. ## Verification - 442 focused E2E tests passed. - Typecheck passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Five provider-pack reuse tests passed. - Six Daytona image contract tests passed. - Fixed Daytona campaign [35740613581](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35740613581) passed. - The overall hiring campaign [35739993219](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35739993219) failed because of an unrelated Mini metadata failure; its Claude cell passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted but did not complete. The isolated Postgres install was repaired and its 15-test probe passed. - After the fixture change, all seven preview reservation tests passed locally and CI server shard 6/12 passed on `20234f75f`. This removes login-shell Node resolution variance; the exact cause of the earlier CI-only timeout is not established. - CI run [35766034635](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35766034635) passed on `20234f75f`. All server, runner, browser, build, and typecheck gates passed. - The signoff browser case initially failed waiting for an approver run. All five signoff tests passed locally without changes; the one allowed CI retry passed all 19 shard tests. This is recorded as an intermittent failure, not a demonstrated product fix. - Greptile reviewed `20234f75f`: 5/5, no actionable findings. - [Follow-up report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-daytona-hiring-20260922/) includes timings, evidence links, and the remaining hiring configuration failure. - Review the immutable image source revision and extracted `provider-pack.json` before another paid recovery run. ## Risks - The Dockerfile checksum gate intentionally fails when the resolved lockfile changes. A future dependency change must refresh the reviewed checksum with the image change. - The local extraction guide requires Docker and a pullable immutable image. - An image built from an older source revision can still fail runtime manifest verification. The guide does not bypass that check. - The change does not alter runner prompts, approval policy, or recovery behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using the primary GPT-6 backend; the exact backend deployment ID is not exposed. Repository analysis and code execution used tool access. Assistance also came from OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
b872cd3d1b |
test(server): select exposure reservation host ports at run time (#12783)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server manages runtime exposure and host port leases for workspace services > - This test suite used fixed host port pairs inside the Linux ephemeral port range > - An unrelated short-lived socket could take one pair and cause a false test failure > - This pull request selects free host port pairs at run time and starts above the low lease lane > - The benefit is a more stable test suite with the same deterministic allocator checks ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The runtime exposure reservation test suite used two fixed app and HMR port pairs. These ports sit inside the Linux ephemeral port range. An unrelated socket could use a pair during the test, and the guest bind could fail with `EADDRINUSE`. **Expected behavior** The suite must select two free app and HMR port pairs before each test. It must avoid the low lease lane that a live instance can own without a listener. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts`. 2. Start another process that briefly uses one fixed test port. 3. Observe that the guest bind can fail even when the allocator works correctly. **Paperclip version or commit** `c982003e00f4e8a325bafec3af4ddb113c0c1f8a` **Deployment mode** Local dev test run. **Installation method** Built from source with pnpm. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This change tests the runtime exposure allocator. **Database mode** Not database-related. ## What Changed - Select two free app and HMR port pairs in `beforeEach`. - Start the scan 500 ports above the runtime exposure range minimum. - Keep the synthetic host stub limited to the selected pairs. - Keep all seven test cases and the existing lifecycle coverage. ## Verification - Run `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts`. - Run `npx vitest run server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - Confirm the full CI suite reaches a terminal green state. ## Risks Low risk. This change updates one test file and does not change production code. A port can still become busy after discovery and before the guest bind; the test documents this remaining race. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`), 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
1a17cbf232 |
fix(runtime-exposure): mediate leased app/HMR port pairs centrally (#11526)
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> > **Stacked pull request.** This targets #11525, which targets #11524. Merge those first. Review only the last commit, `fix(runtime-exposure): mediate leased app/HMR port pairs centrally`. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts managed runtime services for execution workspaces, and #11524 and #11525 make those services reachable over Tailscale HTTPS on a loopback port pair > - An HTTPS lane is only safe if one execution workspace holds its port pair exclusively for the whole life of the lane > - A managed start reused a pair that a stopped but still leased workspace owned. Paperclip reported that workspace stopped and its exposure removed, while the host listeners and the Serve mappings for those ports were live and belonged to an unrelated workspace > - The cause is that ownership was decided in more than one place, and no single place saw persisted reservations, live listeners, and Serve mappings together > - This pull request adds one mediator that owns the decision, and makes every mismatch fail closed while naming the conflicting workspace > - The benefit is that a later start cannot collide with, adopt, or interfere with another issue's service, and cannot produce security evidence attributed to the wrong workspace ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the bug report template. **What happened** A managed HTTPS start reused the loopback port pair of a stopped but still exclusively leased execution workspace. The ports were then held by an unrelated workspace. Paperclip continued to report the first workspace's runtime as stopped and its exposure as removed, while the host listeners and the `tailscale serve` mappings for those exact ports were live and owned by the other workspace. **Expected behavior** An active execution-workspace lease reserves its app and HMR pair until the lease is explicitly released or torn down. A start that finds the pair held by a different workspace fails closed and names the conflict. Paperclip never adopts a process or a Serve mapping across execution-workspace ids. **Root cause** Three separate readers each had an incomplete view: - `deprovisionExposure` replaces the exposure status with a fresh `removed` status whose `listeners` array is empty. A later reader asking "which ports did this row own?" gets no answer, so a stopped row's pair looked free even while the row was leased. - Startup reconciliation adopted a persisted service by `row.port` alone, then terminated the local service when its health check failed. Under the `project_primary` strategy, where workspaces share a working directory, the containment check cannot separate two workspaces, so the sweep could adopt and then kill an unrelated workspace's live service. - Allocation checked live port availability but never checked which pairs active leases still reserve. **Impact** Two workspaces can collide on one lane. A start can adopt or interfere with another issue's service, and evidence about an exposure can be attributed to the wrong workspace. ## What Changed - Add `server/src/services/runtime-exposure/port-reservation.ts`, one mediator that decides allocation and ownership from persisted reservations plus live listener and Serve ownership together. - Reserve a pair for as long as its execution workspace holds an active lease, until the lease is explicitly released or torn down. - Re-derive a row's pair from the `port` column and `deriveViteHmrPort` instead of the status `listeners` array, so a `removed` status no longer hides which ports a leased row still reserves. - Refuse to adopt a process or a Serve mapping across execution-workspace ids. A mismatch fails closed and names the conflicting workspace and issue. - Treat an unattributable holder as a conflict. A Serve mapping that is present but cannot be attributed means the host has something there that could not be named, so it fails closed instead of falling through to "allowed". - Make reconciliation surface a stopped or removed row whose reserved ports are live or mapped by another workspace, instead of reporting success. - Leave manual and unknown Serve mappings alone on release and teardown. ## Verification - `npx vitest run --root server src/services/runtime-exposure/ src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure-backfill.test.ts` — 8 files, **112 tests pass**. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — **0 errors** with `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` built. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — migration numbering and safety checks pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 87 tests pass. The five required regressions are covered by `workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts` and `port-reservation.test.ts`: 1. Reuse of a stopped-but-leased pair is denied. 2. Cross-execution-workspace process adoption is denied. 3. A Serve mapping ownership mismatch is visible and fails closed. 4. Concurrent allocators return unique pairs. 5. Release and teardown make the pair reusable without harming manual or unknown mappings. Note for reviewers: `server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts` fails on a development host that already runs an HTTPS canary holding ports 42000, 42001, 52000, and 52001, because that fixture stubs port availability and then allocates into the occupied range. It is unaffected by this change and is expected to pass in CI, where no such listener exists. Please read the CI result rather than a local run on an exposing host. ## Risks - The mediator is now the single decision point for allocation and adoption, so a defect in it affects every managed start. This is deliberate: the incident happened because the decision was spread across three readers, and concentrating it is the fix. - Behavior becomes stricter. A start that previously reused a pair now fails closed with a named conflict. This is the intended change, and it can surface pre-existing collisions that used to pass silently. - The remediation path does not stop an unrelated service that already holds a pair. It reports the conflict instead, so it cannot disturb another issue's running lane. - No migration runs in this pull request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, 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 |