mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
8d200b66641d1b39e15e70114099464beea16baf
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
f3af9887ca |
fix(chat): keep each chat conversation in its own wake batch (#17054)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels let a linked user talk to an agent from Slack, GitHub and other platforms. Each external thread is a chat conversation that is bound to one issue. > - One issue can have many conversations. A GitHub pull request review makes one conversation for each inline finding thread. > - When replies arrive behind an active run, the wake queue merges them into one deferred wake. The merge did not look at the conversation. > - A reviewed chat run can attest only one conversation. A merged batch from two threads always failed attestation with `setup_failed` / `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`, so no reply got an answer. > - This pull request keeps each chat conversation in its own wake batch. The single-conversation attestation check stays the same. > - The benefit is that replies in different review threads each get their own attested run, one after the other. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16793 (related: chat origin during coalescing). No public issue exists, so the bug report follows. **What happened?** A linked user replied in three different inline review-finding threads of one pull request while the agent's review run was still active. The three wakes merged into one deferred wake. The promoted run failed in about 2 seconds with `setup_failed` / `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized` and `providerWorkStarted=false`. None of the three replies got an answer. The failed-chat retry cannot recover this batch, because a retry source holds one conversation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind two chat conversations (two GitHub finding threads) to one `in_review` issue. 2. Start a run for the assigned agent on that issue. 3. As the linked user, reply once in each thread. 4. Finish the active run. 5. See one promoted run that fails with `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`. **Expected behavior** Each thread gets its own run. Each run attests its one conversation and answers its reply. **Cause** `findExistingDeferredWake` matched on company, agent, issue and actor only. The active-run coalesce path had the same gap. `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` correctly denies a batch with more than one conversation. ## What Changed - `run-dispatch/domain/wake-context.ts`: add the `chatConversationId` wake-context key, a reader, and `wakeChatConversationsConflict`. A conflict means that both wakes have a conversation and the two conversations are different. - `issue-assignment-wakeup.ts` and `chat-channels/inbound/wakeups.ts`: stamp the conversation ID on each inbound chat wake. - `chat-channels/failed-run-retry.ts`: stamp the conversation ID on failed-chat retry wakes, so later replies do not merge into a retry from another conversation. - `wake-queue` admission: do not coalesce into an active run of another conversation. The deferred-wake lookup now matches only wakes of the same conversation or wakes without a conversation. - `heartbeat/queue.ts`: the same-scope queued or running coalesce target is skipped when the conversations conflict. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: describe per-conversation chat wake batching. - Tests: an integration regression in the GitHub review block of `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`, and unit cases for the active-run branch in `wake-queue/application/use-cases.test.ts`. ## Verification - Red before the fix: `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t "replies in review finding threads"`. The main case fails with one run: `{ status: "failed", errorCode: "setup_failed", error: "reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized" }`. - Green after the fix, same command, 3 of 3 pass: - Replies in two finding threads give two successive runs. Each run succeeds, has `paperclipExternalChatExecutionBound: true`, and holds only its own comment and conversation. - Two replies in the same thread still give one run with both comments. - After the linked identity is revoked, each separated run is still denied (`setup_failed`) and the adapter does not execute. - `vitest run src/modules/wake-queue src/modules/run-dispatch`: all pass, with the new cases (different conversation, same conversation, run without a conversation, non-chat wake). - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching`, `durable-chat-wakeup`, `chat-failed-run-retry-boundary`, `issue-queued-comments-routes`, `heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation`. - Full `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`: 823 passed, 1 timed out. The timed-out test (`GitHub terminal receipt composes pinned HTTP and durable source authority (held_token)`) passes alone with and without this change. The sandbox has a 4 GB memory cap. - Not run locally: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The server `tsc` process was killed at the 4 GB sandbox memory cap. CI runs both. - Runtime dependency note: the deferred-wake lookup adds one JSONB predicate to the existing deferred-wake query. It reads the same rows. The query count does not change. The integration regression runs it against embedded Postgres. ## Risks - Low risk. No schema change and no migration. - Behavior change: chat replies from different conversations on one issue now run one after the other, not in one batch. Before this change, such a batch always failed, so no working flow becomes slower. - Wakes without a conversation (non-chat wakes, and wakes queued before this deploy) keep the old coalescing. A deferred wake from before the deploy has no conversation key, so one later reply can still merge into it. That window closes when the queue drains. - The check keeps the single-conversation attestation in `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun`. Revoked identities are still denied. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), in Claude Code through the Paperclip agent harness. It used tool use (shell, file editing, test runs) 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d30648dee8 |
Preserve accepted messages for paused recipients (#16679)
Keep accepted deferred requests pending while their recipient is paused and deliver through normal gates after resume. Preserve company, task hold, and cleanup checks. Verification: 247 focused checks, recursive typecheck, the full CI test and build matrix, and Apex 5/5. The local Git fixture initial-branch limitation is documented in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1d5a439e2b |
Diagnose native model rejections and preserve repairable reviews (#15304)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent execution and recovery. > - A native provider can return a failed turn with an accepted result. > - This path replaced a structured model rejection with a generic failure. > - Finalization could also queue the same failed request for recovery. > - This change retains a bounded model and authentication diagnosis. > - Workers wait for a configuration fix; reviews retain their assignment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the bug** A native Codex turn can report HTTP 400 because the selected model is not supported by its ChatGPT connection. When the turn also returns a failed semantic result, the run shows `Native session failed` and `adapter_failed`. The native failed-result finalizer can create a retry intent before the adapter error is saved. **To Reproduce** Use a native Codex session that returns a structured `invalid_request_error` model/ChatGPT rejection and an accepted failed result. The regression tests reproduce this with a stub provider and a real isolated PostgreSQL database. No provider account or live request is needed. **Expected behavior** Show an actionable error and stop automatic retries of the rejected request. Block the current worker for a configuration fix. Preserve a pending review so its reviewer can explicitly retry after repair and resolve the original assignment. A stale run must not block a new task owner or override a completed review. **Version and deployment mode** The affected source path is present at `858094ba81`. This change applies to native Codex execution in local and remote environments. Related work: #13853 covers CLI protocol compatibility, #14942 refreshes runtime/model pins, and #12767 proposes legacy adapter model validation. This change concerns accepted native failed results and does not replace those changes. ## What Changed - Recognize only a bounded structured HTTP 400 provider error for the exact selected model and failed turn. - Save a fixed actionable error and four fixed diagnostic fields. Exclude raw provider text and model names from the new diagnostic. - Re-derive finalization evidence from the pinned execution and committed runner event, including its canonical hash and identity bindings. - Block only the current worker. For a current pending reviewer, preserve the original review decision and status version, release execution, and create no automatic recovery action. Recheck execution ownership under the issue lock. Preserve superseded and completed reviews. - Keep unknown failures, accepted results, cleanup, and ownership fences intact. Advance the status policy version to `phase6-v8`. - Route this exact failure code through the existing configuration recovery path. Permit an authenticated Board retry of this native failure only for its saved, still-pending review; discard caller review markers and revalidate at dispatch. ## Verification - Node 24: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - Independent focused validation: 222 tests passed across the new observer and PostgreSQL integration suites, status arbiter, diagnostic redaction, recovery classification, wake policy, and wake use cases. - The integration tests use actual result persistence, finalization, and the wake dispatcher. They cover zero retry dispatch for an authorized rejection, repeated reconciliation, pending/superseded/resolved reviews, reassignment, and a same-agent successor at an unchanged status version. - Final-commit verification: full typecheck and build passed; independent route/integration/arbiter/review validation passed 136 tests with no remaining source findings. This includes authenticated retry refusals, actual heartbeat retry admission, atomic queued-review claim, and acceptance of the original review. - The local aggregate test run was stopped to avoid duplicating the canonical Linux CI aggregate on this development host. Its partial log showed no failures; no full local-suite pass is claimed. The full hosted Linux CI aggregate passed on the final commit. - No live provider calls, runtime changes, or schema changes were made. ## Risks The classifier is intentionally narrow. A changed provider response format remains an unknown failure. No global model restriction is introduced. The worker blocker requires current task authority and does not replace newer assignments or completed review decisions. A pending review remains in review and requires an explicit retry after configuration repair; it is not rebound to a new status decision. The retry decision is durable. There remains a small existing gap between status/effect commit and diagnostic metadata persistence; a crash there can leave a generic diagnostic while preserving the blocked decision. No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model suffix 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 #123` / `Refs #123` 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run focused 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
|
0d8bbf7cf4 |
refactor(server): move the queued-comment queue mutations into the wake-queue module (#13145)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server coordinates issue execution and agent wake events > - Queued comment mutations belong to the wake queue that owns their state > - Route-local database writes split queue rules across two layers > - This pull request moves those mutations into the wake-queue module and keeps route authorization and response mapping > - The benefit is one transaction boundary with company-scoped writes and a shared checked response contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard endpoints write queue state directly from the route layer. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The route layer owns database transactions, locks, queue writes, and wake-row writes for queued comments. **Proposed behavior** The wake-queue module owns these operations. The routes keep authorization, input checks, error mapping, and response mapping. **Reason and benefit** The module gives all queued-comment callers one transaction boundary and applies company predicates to every adapter read and write. **Breaking changes** None. The endpoints keep their existing paths and response behavior. ## What Changed - Move queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard operations into the wake-queue module. - Add company predicates to seven queue writes. - Use the shared queue contract type for mutation responses. - Add module tests and route tests for the moved operations. ## Verification - `server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 128 tests pass across 6 files. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts`: 19 tests pass. - The server TypeScript check reports the same 141 pre-existing errors before and after this change. - GitHub Actions must pass the required pull-request checks. ## Risks The change moves transaction and lock ownership across module boundaries. The new adapter, use-case, and route tests cover the moved behavior. No database schema changes occur. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current agent runtime, tool use and code review support. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
889947c238 |
feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## 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
|
ae0c1fbbd5 |
refactor(server): move the admission half of the deferred wake state machine into the wake-queue module (#13136)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service admits wake requests while an issue has an active execution run. > - That admission branch mixes wake policy, database reads, and database writes in one service. > - This structure makes the wake-queue boundary hard to test and extend. > - This pull request moves the admission policy and its database adapter into the wake-queue module. > - The result keeps heartbeat orchestration small and makes the admission behavior testable in isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heartbeat service now delegates deferred wake admission to the wake-queue module. The module keeps the existing merge, defer, and ordinary-wake outcomes. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The heartbeat service contains a 146-line branch that reads wake state, chooses an outcome, and writes the result. **Proposed behavior** The wake-queue module owns the pure admission decision and the adapter reads and writes. The heartbeat service calls one module method. **Reason and benefit** This boundary reduces service coupling and lets module tests cover the admission policy. The change keeps the existing reason strings and outcomes. **Breaking changes** None. The change preserves the current behavior and public API. **Additional context** This pull request follows [PR #13132](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13132), which merged the first slice of this refactor. I searched GitHub for duplicate and related pull requests before opening this pull request. ## What Changed - Move deferred wake admission policy into `server/src/modules/wake-queue`. - Add module ports and a PostgreSQL adapter for the admission reads and writes. - Keep the existing wake outcomes and stored reason strings. - Extend the module boundary check to reject service imports from the application layer. - Add unit and adapter tests for the moved behavior. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs` passes. - The `server/src/modules/wake-queue` suite passes 58 tests. - The eight pinned heartbeat and queued-comment tests remain unchanged and require CI verification. - Every continuous-integration check must reach a terminal green state before merge. ## Risks The refactor changes the location of wake admission logic. A missed adapter condition could change deferred wake behavior. The tests cover the policy outcomes and the adapter writes. The residual tenant-scope risk remains documented in the review record. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The implementation author ran the tests and prepared the commit set. ## 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
|
0bff1d5cb6 |
refactor(server): simplify the wake-queue module (#13139)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server uses a deferred wake queue to release work at the correct time > - The wake queue had repeated decisions, helpers, queries, and recovery data > - This repetition made the module harder to read and left a drain invariant implicit > - This pull request moves pure decisions into the policy layer and simplifies the queue flow > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer module with the same behavior and direct test coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13136 **Problem:** The deferred wake queue carried repeated logic across the application and database layers. **Expected behavior:** The queue keeps the same wake, release, recovery, and escalation behavior after the refactor. **Solution:** Move pure decisions into the policy layer, share repeated data and predicates, and state the drain invariant in the application layer. ## What Changed - Remove the unused database port method and carry the blocked release notice kind as a typed field. - Move four pre-drain decisions into pure policy functions with table-driven tests. - Resolve the responsible user once in the application layer. - Use the canonical helper for agent invokability checks. - Share string helpers and run predicates across the module. - Split the deferred-wake decision flow and share recovery facts with a discriminator. - Bound the drain loop and throw when it processes a wake identifier twice. - Rename queue ports to describe their behavior. - Share row-loading code between stranded-issue escalation adapters. - Restore the interaction-continuation integration test case. ## Verification - Run the three wake-queue module test files. They pass 61 cases locally. - Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. It passes locally. - Run the `server/` type-check and confirm that no error names the changed wake-queue module or `heartbeat.ts`. - Run continuous integration and confirm that `promotes an interaction continuation after removing a coalesced self-authored comment` passes. ## Risks The change refactors queue control flow and database adapter boundaries. The main risk is a behavior change in deferred wake release or recovery. The new policy tests and the restored integration case cover these paths. The local environment cannot run the integration test because the same dependency failure occurs on the base branch. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, context window not exposed by the runtime, with reasoning, 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
6dd48cad43 |
refactor(server): move the release half of the deferred wake state machine into a wake-queue module (#13132)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The heartbeat service releases deferred issue wakes and promotes the next run > - The release logic sat in a large service function, which made its decisions and database effects hard to test > - A promotion race could reopen an issue without creating the promoted run > - Company checks did not protect every read and write, and some readers used a second transaction connection > - This pull request moves the release logic into a layered wake-queue module and closes these race and company-scope defects > - The benefit is clearer decisions, safer writes, and focused tests while existing callers keep the same entry point ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #10195 ## What Changed - Move the release half of deferred issue execution from `heartbeat.ts` into `server/src/modules/wake-queue/`. - Add pure policy decisions with table-driven tests. - Claim a wake before the reopen write and advance to the next wake when the claim fails. - Add company predicates to guarded reads and writes. - Pass the transaction-scoped issue snapshot to reader ports. - Keep `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` as the public wrapper. ## Verification - Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Run `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` inside `server/` and compare the result with the known baseline. - Run the wake-queue unit and adapter tests in continuous integration. - Check the promotion-claim ordering, guarded writes, transaction-scoped reads, and cross-company outcomes. - Search the pull request diff for internal issue identifiers. ## Risks - The refactor changes the transaction path for deferred wake release. - A stale or lost wake claim now skips that wake and continues with the next queued wake. - The public wrapper keeps its name and signature, which limits caller risk. - Continuous integration must confirm the full server test suite and build. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model version not exposed, context window not exposed, with shell, Git, and GitHub tool use. ## 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> |