mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-05 21:02:34 +01:00
ad5cd785b1b5e3be1ac5c2d4736a328bd2ca9478
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ad5cd785b1 |
fix(wake-queue): keep promoted Retry runs scoped to their issue (#18876)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The wake queue starts the next run for a task when the task's
current run releases its execution lock.
> - A board Retry saves a receipt with only `{ issueId, taskRetry }`.
This receipt has no saved wake context.
> - When the release drain promotes that receipt, the promoted context
gets `taskKey` from the payload, but it does not get `issueId` or
`taskId`.
> - The new run takes the task's execution lock, but the database saves
it as a company-scoped run with no issue.
> - Low-trust workspace preparation then has no issue reference. The run
fails before provider work with "Low-trust execution issue is outside
the active trust boundary."
> - This pull request restores the issue scope of a payload-only receipt
during promotion.
> - The benefit is that a Retry on a low-trust task runs in its task
boundary and does not fail during setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A user clicked Retry on a low-trust task while a run was busy. When the
busy run ended, the release drain promoted the saved Retry receipt. The
promoted run had `issue_id = NULL`, `scope_kind = company`, and a
context snapshot with only `taskKey`, `wakeReason: task_retry`,
`wakeSource`, and `wakeTriggerDetail`. Workspace preparation failed with
`low_trust_boundary_mismatch` (HTTP 422) in the setup phase.
**Expected behavior**
A promoted run for a task must keep that task's issue scope. This is
true also when the deferred receipt has no saved wake context. Workspace
preparation must then evaluate the task's own trust boundary.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use a task with a low-trust execution policy whose assignee is an
agent.
2. While a run on that task is busy, click Retry on the task.
3. Let the busy run end. The release drain promotes the deferred Retry
receipt.
4. The promoted run is company-scoped with no `issueId`. It fails in
setup with `low_trust_boundary_mismatch`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
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> |