2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2	8ab955776d	perf(github): check the requester provenance of an issue list's review waits in one batch (#20851) ... <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An agent can review a GitHub pull request. After the agent publishes the review, the task waits in review for the next GitHub reply. A later run of the same task can inherit this wait. > - Issue lists, issue summaries and inbox attention show these waits. For each waiting task, the server first checks the requester provenance of the waiting run (`chatRunSourceMessageId`). This check is an authorization check: it walks the identity-context lineage of the run and rejects a changed requester, another task, another company or another provider. > - #20673 batched the review reads and the publication reads of one list request. It kept the provenance check as one call for each waiting run, inside `Promise.all`. > - Thus a request with N waits still built and sent at least 2N statements at the same moment. The database is fast for each statement, but the server builds each statement on its main thread. > - On a hosted instance, a CPU profile of the server showed the main thread at 96% of one core. SQL text building, per-statement timers, socket writes and garbage collection had the largest shares. Connection samples showed 235 to 292 pool connections whose last statement was the source-message link read of this check, and 53 to 112 whose last statement was its identity-context read. > - This pull request checks the provenance of all the waiting runs of one request in one batch. The runs that need the same kind of read share one statement. Each run gets the same decision as a separate call, from the same walk and the same reads. > - The benefit is that a list request with 250 waits sends 17 statements, not 658, and uses about one quarter of the CPU time. The statement count no longer follows the number of waits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20673 (batched the review reads and the publication reads of the same request; this change does the same for the provenance reads that #20673 kept for each run). Refs #20551 (authorizes the waits of one issue page with one read). **What happened** `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits` called `chatRunSourceMessageId` one time for each waiting run, inside `Promise.all`. Each call sent an identity-context read and a source-message link read. A run that continues an earlier run also sent a parent-context read and a source-run read for each continuation in its lineage. `listExternalReviewWaits` calls this function for the issue list, the issue summaries and the inbox attention of a company, so each of those requests repeated the same reads for every waiting task. Evidence from a hosted instance (sanitized): - CPU profile of the server process, 30 s, 5 ms samples: main thread at 96% of one core. Building SQL text for select statements: 17.7% inclusive. The idle-timer restart that the database client does for each statement: 7.6%. Socket writes: 6.2%. Garbage collection: 13%. - Three samples of the pool connections (about 494 connections). 235 to 292 connections had the source-message link read of `chatRunSourceMessageId` as their last statement. 53 to 112 connections had its identity-context read as their last statement. - The `DISTINCT ON` review read that #20673 added ran about 29 times each minute. It runs one time for each list request, so each request started hundreds of provenance reads. **Expected behavior** One list request sends a number of provenance statements that does not follow the number of waiting tasks. The decision for each run does not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put many tasks of one company in review, each with an inherited GitHub review wait. 2. Open the issue list or the inbox. 3. Count the statements that the server sends. The identity-context read and the source-message link read run one time for each waiting task. The benchmark below does these steps on a local PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.ts`: - The provenance decision is now one walk (`sourceMessageWalk`). The walk asks for one read at a time and decides on the returned rows only. Its checks, their order and its error messages are the checks of the previous `chatRunSourceMessageId`. - The five reads of the walk (active identity context, source-message link, board message, parent context, source run) are defined one time in `provenanceReads`. Each definition takes its values either as literals or as SQL columns. - `chatRunSourceMessageId` (single run) drives the walk with one statement for each read, as before. The joins, the company scope and the filters are the same. The identity-context reads now select the seven columns that the walk uses instead of every column. - New `chatRunSourceMessageIds(db, runs, options)` (batch). It drives one walk for each run. In each round, the runs that wait for the same kind of read share one statement: `unnest(...)` of the request values, `CROSS JOIN LATERAL` the same single-row read with the request columns in place of the literals. Thus each run gets the row that its own single read returns, with `LIMIT 1` and the company scope on each join. The result for each run is `{ messageId }` or `{ forbidden }` (the 403 that the single call throws). A database error rejects the whole batch, as `Promise.all` did. - `server/src/services/chat-channels/github/review-wait.ts`: `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits` checks the provenance of its runs with the batch. A 403 still gives `revoked`. The single-run `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` does not change. - `server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.test.ts`: two new tests (see Verification). - `server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`: one new regression test for the statement count. - `server/scripts/benchmark-review-wait-provenance.ts`: the reproduction and the before/after measurement. It loads the pre-fix modules from `--baseline-ref` and fails unless both versions return the same waits. - `scripts/benchmark-github-review-wait.ts`: removed an assertion that `run-origin.ts` is byte-identical to its baseline. Both sides of that benchmark import the current helper, so the comparison stays fair. Without this change, the documented command of that benchmark fails. - `doc/DATABASE.md`: describes the batch provenance check and the new benchmark command. Statement count of one batch: the walk of one run does at most 3 + 4L reads, where L is the number of continuations in its requester lineage. The batch does the same number of rounds for its longest lineage. Each round sends at most one statement for each kind of read (5 kinds), for any number of runs. A request whose waiting runs accepted their GitHub comment directly sends 2 provenance statements. ## Verification Red/green regression test (`server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`): - `reads the waits of forty runs with the statements of four runs`. Before the fix: `expected { few: 10, many: 82 } to deeply equal { few: 4, many: 4 }`. After the fix: passes. Equivalence tests (`server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.test.ts`), on real PostgreSQL: - `gives every run of a batch the decision of its own check, in every provenance state`. 33 runs, each in a different provenance state, are checked with the single function and with the batch for five option sets (no options, legacy wake allowed, GitHub, GitHub with legacy wake, Slack). The test compares the decision of each run (message, `null`, or the 403 and its message) for: the full batch, the reversed batch, and a batch of one run. The states include the negative cases: a run of another company, a message that is linked only in another company, a message that is linked to another task, a conversation that moved to another task, a continuation on another task, a changed requester (run, identity context, continuation, board message), a link of another provider, a missing link, an outbound link only, a deleted message, an agent message, a rejected or pending identity context, a missing parent, another agent and a lineage cycle. The test also states the expected GitHub decision for each state, so the comparison cannot pass on two wrong answers. - `checks the runs of a batch with statements that follow the lineage, not the number of runs`. 4 runs and 40 runs each send 2 statements. 40 separate checks send 80. One continuation in each lineage gives 4 statements for the batch. - A mutation check: when the batch gives a row to the wrong request, both tests fail. Commands: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/chat-channels/run-origin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts` - Focused run of 15 test files that import the changed modules, their callers or the shared seed helper, including `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `chat-github-tools.test.ts`, `slack-authority.test.ts` and `issue-list-review-wait-authorization.integration.test.ts`: 482 tests passed. In `idle-completed-history.test.ts`, `afterEach` hooks (a `TRUNCATE` of the test database) timed out at 30 s for 1 test in this run and for 3 tests in a second run of the file, while other agents loaded the machine. No assertion failed. The three tests of that file that reach the changed code pass when they run alone. CI runs the full file. - `server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts` also uses the single check. It was not run locally (very large file). CI runs it. - Typecheck of the changed files and of the callers of `chatRunSourceMessageId` with a focused `tsc` program: no errors in these files. The full server typecheck was not run locally (shared machine). CI supplies it. - The first CI run of this pull request failed `ci / policy`: the module boundary check rejects an insert into the agents table outside the agent lifecycle module, and the benchmark seeded its fixture agent that way. The second commit seeds that agent with SQL. `pnpm check:module-boundaries` passes locally, and the benchmark gives the same statement counts. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 (broader verification required) because the change adds a file under `server/scripts/`. CI supplies the broad coverage. Before/after measurement: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx scripts/benchmark-review-wait-provenance.ts --baseline-ref=e2cf9a670fc5d5f5058fd0972beb71650f77c554 ``` One call of `listExternalReviewWaits` (the read of one issue list request). Embedded PostgreSQL 18.1, Node v26.4.0, `VACUUM ANALYZE` after seeding. One company, one agent, one GitHub repository. Every wait has a published review. Every tenth waiting run continues three earlier runs. 3 warm-up calls, then 15 pairs in alternating order. Both versions return the same waits and the same inherited wait for each run. | Waits | Version | Statements | SQL text bytes | Wall ms, median (min–max) | CPU ms, median (min–max) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 20 | before | 60 | 31,084 | 14.1 (12.8–19.6) | 13.7 (8.7–39.3) | | 20 | after | 17 | 15,847 | 12.5 (9.4–22.7) | 8.8 (4.1–87.1) | | 250 | before | 658 | 300,611 | 63.3 (58.1–89.6) | 78.1 (64.8–103.3) | | 250 | after | 17 | 17,171 | 20.8 (18.9–29.2) | 18.7 (14.1–27.3) | | 1000 | before | 2,608 | 1,179,710 | 256.0 (221.0–363.2) | 303.3 (262.2–507.8) | | 1000 | after | 17 | 21,695 | 54.9 (46.7–81.7) | 51.0 (41.6–72.2) | Of the 658 statements before the fix at 250 waits, 650 are provenance reads: 325 identity-context reads, 250 source-message link reads and 75 source-run reads. After the fix, 9 statements do the same reads. The other 8 statements of the request do not change. Sizes are set with `WAITS=20` and `WAITS=1000`. Other agents used the same machine during the measurement, so the maximum values have noise. - The batch statements use index scans only (`run_identity_contexts_pkey`, `run_identity_contexts_company_run_idx`, `chat_message_links_company_comment_idx`, `chat_conversations_pkey`, `chat_endpoints_company_id_uq`, `heartbeat_runs_pkey`). The 9 batch statements of a request with 250 waits take about 1 ms of server execution in total. - Wall time and CPU time are almost equal before the fix. This shows that the cost is in the server process, not in the database. Not verified: - The effect on the hosted instance. This pull request does not deploy. The share of the main-thread CPU that this path uses there is not known; the profile gives the share of all statement building. ## Risks - The provenance check is an authorization check. The risk is a batch decision that differs from the single decision. Mitigation: both paths run the same walk and build each read from the same definition. The batch read is the single read inside `CROSS JOIN LATERAL`, for each request row. The equivalence test compares both paths in every state. - A database error (for example an invalid UUID in a legacy task binding) rejects the whole batch. The previous `Promise.all` also rejected the whole request. The callers of the batch pass the native task of each run. - The statement count of the batch follows the longest lineage of its runs. A batch with one very long lineage sends as many statements as that run sent before, in sequence. It does not send more. - The batch sends its statements in sequence on one connection. Before, the reads of N runs used up to N pool connections at the same moment. - The single-run callers (GitHub tools, review publication, response comments, Slack authority, the finalizer, the status committer) keep one statement for each read. Their identity-context reads select fewer columns. - No migration. No new index. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5.2 (`claude-fable-5-2`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (code reading, editing, shell, tests). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-11 10:19:29 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	7a0c9c23cf	perf(github): reduce inherited review-wait transfer (#17893) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review tasks can retain a passive wait after a review is published. > - The wait check reads current requester, task, agent, repository, and publication bindings. > - It also transfers the complete assessment for one commit comparison. > - Large review summaries and findings add repeated database transfer. > - This pull request selects only the typed reviewed commit value. > - The wait keeps its existing checks and transfers less data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The inherited GitHub review-wait check in the server. **Current behavior** The joined query selects the complete assessment JSON. The caller uses only `assessment.reviewedCommit`. **Proposed behavior** Select `assessment->'reviewedCommit'`. Keep its JSON type and the strict comparison with the head SHA. Keep all joins, filters, ordering, and publication checks. **Reason and benefit** The synthetic PostgreSQL 17 fixture reduces one result DataRow from 6,874 bytes to 423 bytes (93.85%). This measurement excludes response metadata, TLS, and TCP. It does not predict a monthly bill or deployed savings. **Breaking changes** None. No public API, stored data, schema, or execution policy changes. **Additional context** Related work: #17562 narrowed a different external-review candidate query. This PR changes the inherited published-review lookup. The duplicate search found no matching open change. ## What Changed - Select the commit as JSON, rather than text, to preserve strict comparison for legacy numeric, object, array, missing, and null values. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for narrow responses, unchanged stored assessments, revocation, tenant and agent bindings, and a newer queued head. - Add a synthetic benchmark that captures the real baseline and treatment SQL, compares outputs, and measures raw DataRow bytes. - Document the read contract and benchmark command. ## Verification - Baseline: `663fe667d66d3863d0919a8724f1d99500feef0b`. - `vitest run server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`: 14 tests passed on disposable PostgreSQL 17.11. - Restoring the baseline query makes the response-size regression fail: 8,823 column-value bytes exceed the 1,000-byte bound. Restoring treatment passes. - Benchmark: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-github-review-wait.ts --baseline-ref=663fe667d66d3863d0919a8724f1d99500feef0b`. - The benchmark compares every unchanged SQL column and full service output. It also compares 15 JSON cases and live connection revocation. - Two warmups and seven alternating samples had overlapping latency ranges. No latency improvement is claimed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - Twenty existing published-review consumer regressions passed on PostgreSQL 17.11. These cover continued review, a newer head, publication state, and a connection-disable race at final commit. - Final-head focused tests passed again after the benchmark-only review fix. - Final benchmark treatment: `d94410a6e6bb83e727afdf09cff450a91a89edd6`, with an empty source diff. DataRow bytes remained 6,874 to 423. Warm medians were 3.11 ms before and 3.43 ms after, with overlapping ranges. This proves byte reduction, not a latency improvement. - A provenance check with one staged and one unstaged source edit confirmed that the benchmark records both from the documented server working directory. Those temporary edits were removed. - All final-head CI checks passed for `d94410a6e6bb83e727afdf09cff450a91a89edd6`. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads or recommendations. The independent Paperclip review also scored this commit 5/5. - The first local embedded PostgreSQL attempt failed before assertions because the host exhausted System V semaphores. A direct `initdb` reproduced `could not create semaphores: No space left on device`. The passing focused proof used an owned disposable Docker PostgreSQL 17 container. `pnpm test:run` was not completed locally because of that host limit. The full final-head CI suite passed. - The final CI aggregate briefly reported `in_progress` after all of its steps and the workflow had completed successfully. One rerun of only that aggregate produced a terminal success. The test matrix was not rerun. - The initial frozen install hit the existing upstream patch/lock configuration mismatch. A cached non-frozen local install succeeded. The generated lock change is excluded from this PR. ## Risks The selected commit must retain its JSON type. Using `->>` could turn numeric `1` into text and accept a malformed assessment against head `1`. The regression covers this case. The complete assessment remains available for actual review and publication. Existing fresh authority checks remain in place. No migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, accessed through Codex. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. Used repository inspection, code execution, and PostgreSQL validation. ## 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>	2026-10-27 12:05:01 -05:00