mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-26 10:26:26 +01:00
6d46851920e2858d0f636a3dcbd7d5f0b6a464f8
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
a708a13336 |
Separate plugin workspace completion from maintenance inspection (#17329)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Storage plugins own remote task workspaces. > - Run completion currently requests the same inspection used for storage cleanup. > - That inspection can fetch remote refs and scan files after the agent has finished. > - Completion needs retained workspace identity and durable writes, not permission to delete files. > - This change adds an optional completion operation and keeps maintenance inspection separate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A successful plugin-backed run can fail during completion because the storage provider performs a slow remote-recoverability inspection. Dirty or unpublished output does not need a deletion-safety proof to remain valid task output. **Expected behavior** Completion verifies the assigned workspace and confirms durable writes through the provider. Cleanup still requires the existing full inspection. **Steps to reproduce** Run a task with plugin-owned storage whose inspection fetches remote refs. Let the agent finish, then observe completion waiting for the maintenance inspection. Related context: #16428 added finalization observability. The duplicate search found no existing PR for this provider contract. ## What Changed - Add optional `workspaceProvider.finalizationVersion: 1` and strict `finalize` / `finalized` schemas. - Pass original run and agent context through live completion and recovered completion. - Give the new operation a 30-second deadline and keep ownership checks and lifecycle serialization. - Retain the inspection fallback for providers without the capability. Keep maintenance inspection and removal unchanged. ## Verification - SDK build passed. - Targeted SDK and completion unit tests: 7 passed. - Added integration coverage for capability selection, legacy fallback, maintenance separation, and failure propagation. - Local integration setup timed out starting PostgreSQL; the integration suite passed in GitHub CI. - Full build/typecheck and broader tests passed in GitHub CI (55 successful checks, 2 skipped). Local checks remained targeted as requested. - Diff reviewed for secrets and operational identifiers. ## Risks The capability is opt-in. Providers must not advertise it until their completion implementation is available. An unavailable provider or failed durability barrier remains retryable. No schema or stored-binding migration is required. Test-file size exception: the provider integration suite grows from 973 to 1,002 lines. The 29-line case follows the same prepared binding through legacy completion, opted-in completion, and maintenance inspection using the existing single-connection database fixture. Keeping it there avoids a second embedded-Postgres lifecycle for one transition test. The completion helper unit tests are in a separate focused file. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Codex, with reasoning and code/test 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
989ee668e0 |
Support provider-owned fresh retry workspaces (#17252)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates AI agents and retains their work across failures. > - A retry can require a new workspace while preserving the failed attempt. > - Core rejects this recovery strategy for provider-owned storage. > - Providers should implement the required outcome using their own storage design. > - This pull request adds a semantic fresh-preparation contract and delegates recovery preparation. > - The benefit is that a supported provider can run a fresh retry without losing prior work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retry that selects `fresh_isolated_workspace` fails with `fresh_workspace_storage_unsupported` for provider-owned storage. **Expected behavior** Core asks a capable provider to prepare new storage and attach verified recovery files. The failed workspace remains intact. **Steps to reproduce** Run a task in a task-capable plugin environment. Let the task fail without a verified workspace preservation receipt. Retry the task so Core selects a fresh attempt. **Paperclip version or commit** |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
6204239cfc |
Support installed default project workspace providers (#17247)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storage plugins already own project storage and task checkout preparation. > - Core only selected these plugins through an explicit project policy. > - Installation could therefore leave new and existing projects on incompatible Core preparation. > - This pull request adds one generic manifest declaration and one shared effective-policy resolver. > - Project configuration shows inheritance while durable workspace bindings retain their owners. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin contracts, project configuration, and execution workspace preparation. **Problem or motivation** An installed storage provider cannot become the company default. Projects without an explicit provider keep Core preparation, even when their execution environment cannot use a Core Git checkout. **Proposed solution** A provider declares supported `workspaceProvider.defaultForProjects` mode and strategy. Company-enabled installations supply inherited defaults. Explicit plugin selections and explicit Core/local (`storageProviderPluginId: null`) win. Conflicting defaults require an operator choice. The declaration and implementation contain no provider-specific identifiers. **Alternatives considered** Rewriting every project would lose the distinction between inheritance and overrides. Selecting by worker health would silently change storage on an outage. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing workspace and sandbox provider contracts. The roadmap has no duplicate default-provider implementation. Related public work includes #17243, which covers prepared execution directories rather than provider selection. ## What Changed - Add a validated generic default-provider declaration and document it in the SDK. - Resolve provider selection and Git defaults consistently in project responses, source selection, heartbeat source resolution, reservation, and preparation. - Keep stored policy separate from effective configuration. Add the normal project configuration selector for inheritance, explicit plugins, and Core/local. - Preserve existing local and plugin workspace ownership. Pin selection through preparation and keep provider failures visible. - Add database, API, manifest, heartbeat, and UI regressions. Update the verification maps. ## Verification - Targeted Vitest runs cover manifest validation, project defaults and API access, explicit overrides, existing ownership, new/imported task inheritance, heartbeat routing, source-free tasks, selection pinning during setup, and UI configuration. - Combined policy, provider integration, and heartbeat run: 58 tests pass; 60 unrelated cases excluded. After the final shared-provider fallback fix, all 47 policy tests pass, including shared and operator-mode regressions. - Server and UI TypeScript checks, SDK build, verification-map validation, credential-pattern scan, added-comment scan, and `git diff --check` pass. - A downstream integration uses this Core resolver and preparation service with a real storage hook and mocked remote infrastructure. A new Git project reaches the hook without a stored provider ID. - Standard Greptile and Apex both scored 5/5 on |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
8b4ab65b1c |
Add plugin-owned project storage and task workspaces (#17001)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks can use isolated repository workspaces. > - Core currently prepares those repositories on its own filesystem. > - A storage provider may only expose repositories inside remote agent computers. > - Project storage and task workspace preparation must have one provider owner. > - This pull request adds that contract and keeps execution as a separate plugin interface. > - Core keeps authorization, durable task bindings, and lifecycle fences. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin SDK, project workspace policy, heartbeat preparation, execution leases, and workspace lifecycle. **Problem or motivation** Core cannot prepare a task workspace when its repository storage is unavailable on the Core host. An execution lease must not be required just to prepare persistent storage. **Proposed solution** Let one plugin provide project resource lifecycle and workspace prepare, inspect, restore, and remove behavior. Core reserves a task workspace before it calls the plugin. The plugin returns an opaque durable reference. The matching execution plugin receives that reference on its task RPC. **Alternatives considered** Preparing repositories on Core would require a provider mount on Core. Preparing them only during task launch would tie persistent workspace lifecycle to execution leases and agent availability. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the remote provider model in ROADMAP.md. Related execution work is in #16978. This PR does not replace that task bridge. Native execution of managed storage requires the bridge; this change fails closed when it is absent. ## What Changed - Add one storage provider declaration with supported modes/strategies, a capability, a validated RPC contract, and a test harness. - Persist provider ownership, repository revision, and execution-workspace identity before external effects. Reconcile retries with a stable operation ID. - Prepare provider storage before environment acquisition. Keep Core filesystem preparation out of this path. - Pin the durable reference to the matching execution plugin and validate the lease binding before task dispatch. - Route inspection, reopen, and removal through the existing lifecycle process. Keep local data when remote recovery is uncertain. - Keep the application database pool free during lifecycle locks. Preserve pending workspace selections, validate source edits before retirement, and retry unfinished closed storage cleanup. - Protect provider metadata and live repository sources from caller edits. Storage edits retire only closed records with confirmed removal; retired records cannot reopen. ## Verification - Current head `8214b3ca5`: all 25 provider lifecycle tests pass with `maxConnections=1`. They cover preparation, inspection, reopening, removal, a paused provider with responsive ordinary SQL and a competing source edit, pending selection preservation, rejected source edits, cleanup retry scheduling, and providers that cache operation results, and committed cleanup notifications for storage intent and recovered state. - Final frozen-tree lifecycle run on `8214b3ca5`: all 318 tests passed in 10 files, covering workspace services, reopen, compaction, task binding, project sources, heartbeat preparation, display caching, and source locks. - Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passes. The SDK build and all 128 SDK tests passed during initial verification; later SDK changes are documentation only. - Full CI on the previous head `ec5c7209a` passed all 55 applicable checks; 2 conditional checks skipped. Standard Greptile reviewed current head `342e6d9c3` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All 55 applicable CI checks passed on `342e6d9c3`; 2 conditional checks skipped. The Slack browser and CLI startup jobs passed on their single unchanged-head rerun. Its Apex review returned 4/5 with one pending-restoration issue. Commit `1b58943b1` reconciles that durable intent before cleanup, advances the generation without reopening the Core row, and blocks direct removal or retirement while intent remains unresolved. Standard Greptile reviewed `1b58943b1` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 54 applicable CI checks passed on `1b58943b1`; 3 conditional checks skipped. The chat job passed on its single unchanged-head rerun. Apex then returned 4/5 for a missing cleanup wake after recovery. Commit `8214b3ca5` atomically registers cleanup intent before storage intent and recovery-result writes. Its provider test observes real committed notification hints and the visible advanced generation. Standard Greptile reviewed `8214b3ca5` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 55 applicable current-head CI checks passed on the first run; 2 conditional checks skipped. Final Apex verification completed at 5/5 on this exact head: 38 files reviewed, no new comments, and no unresolved threads. The PR is ready for review and mergeable. - The first Apex review found five issues after a standard 5/5: application-pool starvation, stale pending selections, retirement during rejected source edits, lost cleanup retries, and reused inspection identities. Commits `6d72e7fd4` and `342e6d9c3` fix each with regression coverage. Archive lock waits use dedicated connections, and source edits fail promptly if the lifecycle is busy. Retirement compares normalized values. The normalized-source regression initially failed with the raw-value comparison; after moving the check after normalization, a clean provider-suite rerun passed all 24 tests at that stage. Those threads are resolved; the earlier Apex 0/5 is not a passing acceptance result. - Earlier local integration attempts could not bind localhost inside the sandbox. The same suites passed with permission to start local PostgreSQL. - The earlier broad local `pnpm test:run` overlapped edits and reported stale-revision and checkout-path/Git-fixture failures. It was not a final-tree result. Full CI subsequently passed; the original local failure remains part of verification history. - Local repository-wide typecheck/build cannot complete because `cargo` is unavailable. Direct server TypeScript checks and affected tests pass; full Rust and build validation comes from CI. - An earlier browser run on `ff918c5a8` failed in the unchanged case-filter journey: expected “Done,” received “All statuses,” with an announcement handler recorded during the assertion. The cause is not confirmed. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39500611857/job/118896954508) remains verification history. The unchanged shard passed in the next full CI run on `ec5c7209a`; no UI or fixture change was made. - Current-head browser shard 2 failed waiting five seconds for the mocked Slack setup Success heading. This PR changes neither that UI nor its fixture. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021232) remains verification evidence. The cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-shard rerun passed; no UI or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The workspace test shard passed its 3,978 general tests, then its CLI company-import/export fixture timed out after 30 seconds waiting for startup health before creating any company or workspace. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021855) remains verification history. The child reached external-PostgreSQL startup without exiting or reporting an exception. Its cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-job rerun passed, including the CLI fixture. No startup or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The new cached-removal regression initially failed because its fake worker advertised availability for unrelated fixture plugins, so another workspace changed its fake checkout state. Worker availability now matches the fixture plugin; the complete 25-test provider suite passes. - On `1b58943b1`, the chat shard timed out polling for one conversation after an authorized GitHub description edit. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39510521657/job/118930193418) remains evidence. The exact case passes locally against PostgreSQL (1 passed, 1,380 unrelated cases skipped), and this PR changes neither that test nor its handler. The original cause is unconfirmed; the single unchanged-job CI rerun passed without a code or fixture change. The original cause remains unconfirmed. - The diff was checked for credentials, private references, and generated artifacts. ## Risks This is an additive provider contract with no database migration. Existing projects keep their local behavior unless their policy selects a storage plugin. A selected provider must be ready and enabled. Unknown or unsafe cleanup fails closed. Managed native execution depends on #16978. Core refuses a host Runner fallback. Providers must fence lifecycle generations, preserve ambiguous retries, and report remote recovery honestly. Provider-specific live storage and guest mount qualification remain separate from these Core contract tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code execution, and tests. The exact model variant was not exposed. ## 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 ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (affected suites; broad-run limits are 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> |