PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-11 13:24:55 +01:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	dce0042593	fix(server): wake chat receiver discovery from configuration and lease deadlines (#17572 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat receivers own persistent provider connections and fenced database leases. > - The chat maintenance timer repeatedly queries all eligible receivers, including when none exist. > - Configuration changes and known lease deadlines already identify when discovery is needed. > - This pull request moves receiver discovery to the shared delivery coordinator. > - Empty or settled discovery stops querying, while ownership and recovery remain explicit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17557. This is the next stacked slice after Discord command registration. The base is `codex/sleep-19-discord-command-registration`. What happened? The recurring chat maintenance lane scans receiver inventory and reconciles Discord and Photon runtimes even when configuration has not changed. Expected behavior Reconstruct receiver work at startup. React to committed configuration changes and local listener retirement. Retry foreign ownership at the saved lease expiry. Stop discovery when there is no remaining obligation. Steps to reproduce Start an instance with no chat endpoints. Let startup finish. Observe the recurring receiver inventory query from chat maintenance. With a configured receiver, remove its ownership token while listener shutdown is delayed and signal a configuration refresh: the old implementation can replace the listener before shutdown completes. ## What Changed - Preserve healthy receiver progress after a slow failed batch while retaining per-receiver retry backoff. - Register a receiver discovery worker with scoped refreshes, paged startup inventory, fair batches, and per-receiver or scope failure backoff. - Keep owned receiver identities cached without a discovery deadline, so deletion still stops their listeners. - Use existing transaction signals for configuration, credentials, health, access revocation, company deletion, and provider lifecycle changes. Rename the generic command-only helper to describe its broader configuration contract. - Keep lease-key selection with the receiver owner. Shared scheduling contains no provider protocol. - Retain stopping ownership until listener shutdown and lease release complete. Concurrent acquisition joins the existing stop promise. - Remove receiver discovery from the periodic chat lane. Preserve voice and the other unmigrated duties. - Record producer coverage, failure evidence, limits, and remaining work in `doc/plans/2026-10-25-chat-receiver-discovery-sleep-audit.md`. ## Verification Published head: `ab39569250f4b699a0ab7a829e66dbe27c15020b`. Discord #17557 has landed at master `5bf0142d45`. A normal merge reconciles its squash ancestry by applying only the recorded 27-file receiver patch from parent `547fdf2139`. Every other path matches that master. Every server and package production/test file is byte-identical to the published `6e88ca0201` source that passed the 131-case run, typecheck and build. Unrelated upstream UI/eval/documentation changes are preserved. This PR targets master. Fresh exact-head reviews and CI are required. - 131 distinct targeted cases pass. Five complete receiver, coordinator, batching, startup, and GitHub health error-projection suites pass 99 cases. Twelve real Discord automatic-registration/receiver and Slack held-transaction cases pass separately, with 1,581 other chat integration cases deselected. The complete Photon channel suite passes 20 cases. - The standalone receiver and Photon fixtures each reproduced missing-table failures on separate initially empty PostgreSQL 17 databases. Both now apply pending migrations before client use; their complete 20-case files pass on those same databases. The large chat producer suite uses a separate migrated clone. - The old review concerns already have source fixes: discovery stops suppress their own completion wake at `1604a9fcba`; slow failed batches supply `nextRunAtOnError` at `ab56393acc`. Guarded mutations prove the existing regressions: reenabling the stop wake yields two inventory reads instead of one, and removing the error deadline fails the 1,100 ms provider-delay next-wake assertion. Both original source files are restored byte for byte. Normal full worker and real producer suites pass with those fixes. - All 131 distinct targeted cases, production server typecheck and build pass on source `6e88ca0201`. Exact source comparison carries that evidence to this normal merge; the unchanged suites were not rerun just for unrelated upstream changes. Receiver and Photon fixtures self-migrate separate initially empty databases; the large producer fixture uses its own migrated clone. Source is unchanged after these checks. Recorded listener-count warnings and controlled provider failure logs remain; no assertion was weakened. An initial whole-file identity check rejected expected parent queue additions; precise patch comparison confirms those declarations are correctly preserved. - Old server shard 12 failed because GitHub reports that its self-hosted runner lost communication. The grouped-test step is cancelled, and the retained log has no failing assertion or completed summary. The underlying host/resource/network cause is unproven. That interrupted job is not a pass; the updated parent and fixture source require a fresh full CI run. - [Current acceptance and failure record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/ab39569250f4b699a0ab7a829e66dbe27c15020b/doc/plans/2026-10-25-chat-receiver-discovery-sleep-audit.md#compatibility-after-discord-squash-merge-october-27). Prior 218-case and full-workspace results describe earlier revisions. No full local repository-suite, multi-writer deployment, Cloud wake, host suspension, or fleet cost claim is made. ## Risks - Process-local transaction hints cover the active database owner and its shared clients. Arbitrary direct SQL or independent configuration writers need explicit wake integration. Startup/resume reconstruction and known foreign-lease takeover remain supported; this does not add general multi-writer discovery. - Active receiver sockets and lease renewals continue. This change does not prove host suspension or extend Cloud alarm coverage. - Configuration signals can arrive during drain, initialization, or shutdown. The worker preserves dirty scopes and the owner joins listener retirement before replacement. - Voice, Teams, milestone projection, publication maintenance, GitHub recovery, and the remaining stack inventory are separate work. - The Discord parent has landed and the receiver child now targets master. Fresh exact-head reviews and all CI must pass before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment identifier or context-window limit. ## 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 identifier - [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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-28 07:25:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5bf0142d45	fix(server): schedule Discord command registration from saved deadlines (#17557 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat connections register and verify provider commands in the background. > - Discord command recovery ran inside the recurring Gateway runtime scan. > - Its existing durable records already store verification and retry deadlines. > - This pull request gives command registration its own shared-coordinator worker and scoped commit notifications. > - Idle command work stops querying between real deadlines. Existing command authority and recovery remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17554 and #17561. Both foundations have merged. This slice targets master. Runtime discovery and the other chat maintenance duties remain separate work. What happened? The chat runtime maintenance loop called Discord command registration on every reconciliation. It repeatedly read durable command state even when the next remote verification or retry was minutes away. Expected behavior Use committed producer changes and saved deadlines. Keep the existing five-minute verification policy, Retry-After, uncertain-write quarantine, namespace ownership, and credential fences. Do not add a database table for the timer. Steps to reproduce Configure a Discord connection and let command registration settle. In the parent revision, repeated runtime reconciliation still invokes command recovery. This revision reconstructs command deadlines at startup and removes that call from runtime reconciliation. ## What Changed - Expose normalized deadlines from the existing registration store. Park indefinite retries and invalid or foreign-owned records. Signal before store-owned claims, receipts, and retry-result writes. - Discover eligible endpoints in bounded pages. Refresh only affected endpoint, connection, or company scopes after commits. Dispatch at most 25 due commands per pass with fair company rotation. - Wire configuration, credentials, provider lifecycle/failure paths, inbound activation, generic connection mutation/removal/health, access revocation, and company deletion. - Register the worker through the chat service and shared coordinator. Preserve direct foreground setup calls. Refresh an existing local Gateway through its current owner after command work. - Preserve dirty work during drain and concurrent changes, back off unresolved attempts, and join admitted provider work during shutdown. - Document producer coverage, retained deadlines, supported writers, verification failures, and remaining runtime/Cloud obligations in `doc/idle-discord-command-registration.md` and its dated audit. ## Verification Published head: `547fdf2139144e1e6484198278bf4bb0eade8794`. It normally integrates master at `f8563d25077b17681ab6ef5949f7b07415a58ede`, including landed health #17554 and company deletion #17561. Squash ancestry caused merge conflicts; resolution applied this slice's exact 26-file owned patch from its recorded parent to pinned master. Every other path matches master. Migration 0394 and the current lockfile are preserved. - 141 distinct targeted cases pass on reconciled production source: 78 complete command-store, batching, coordinator and startup-timing cases; 8 real automatic Discord and held-transaction Slack cases; and 55 complete startup/export and company-deletion cases. The 1,581 other chat integration cases were deselected. - Server typecheck and build pass. The company-deletion fixture self-migrates an initially empty isolated database. The two Discord fixtures use separate migrated clones; this is not a fresh-schema claim for those fixtures. Signal-listener warnings remain recorded without assertion failures. - The parent integration preserves health and command notifications at shared producer sites. It changes no provider behavior, schema or coordinator contract. Prior producer, backlog, drain/resume, malformed-hint, transaction, namespace, shutdown and retry regressions remain in the complete command suite. - [Landing compatibility acceptance](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/547fdf2139144e1e6484198278bf4bb0eade8794/doc/idle-discord-command-registration.md#acceptance-after-the-company-deletion-parent-landed-october-27) records current scope and the earlier failures. Older full-matrix or combined-stack runs apply only to their stated revisions. - Fresh exact-head Greptile, Ponytail if present and all CI are required. No full local repository suite, live provider, Cloud alarm, host suspension or savings claim is made. ## Risks - Discord still has real five-minute verification and failure-retry obligations. This does not prove host sleep or external alarm coverage. - Runtime discovery, receipt-to-runtime projection, Gateway lease renewal and persistent sockets remain separate. The remaining runtime poll can still read command receipts; it no longer invokes the command protocol. - Process-local signals cover integrated writers. Independent SQL writers and other replicas require an explicit wake contract. Existing authorization and durable ownership checks remain authoritative. - Refreshes coalesce with a 30-second minimum spacing. Saved work is never discarded because a call returned without progress. - No schema migration, new table, workflow or lockfile change is introduced by this slice. Landed parent repairs are retained. The receiver child must receive this integration before landing. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and reasoning. The exact serving version 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 #` / `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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 23:32:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	585b4e6af8	fix(chat): preserve deferred Retry source batches (#17883 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed execution. > - Connected conversations retain the source and authority for each request. > - Task Retry pins the full saved GitHub input batch before it waits for cleanup. > - Resuming that wait could append an independent board queue after authorization. > - Dispatch then rejected the changed batch before the provider started. > - This pull request keeps the authorized batch intact and restores certified undelivered input from historical failed attempts. > - Each board message retains a separate turn and its own admission checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A deferred GitHub task Retry could consume a separate board message while promoting its saved receipt. The new run then failed with `chat_failed_run_retry_not_authorized`. A second Retry could also fail because the historical run retained the mixed batch. Expected behavior Retry must preserve the source batch it authorized. Separate board input must keep its own execution path. Historical input may be restored only when durable evidence proves that the rejected attempt never started a provider. Steps to reproduce 1. Retain ten authorized GitHub requests behind a failed native turn. 2. Start task Retry while the predecessor still lacks its exact termination receipt. 3. Save an independent board message. 4. Complete cleanup and resume the same Retry receipt. 5. Observe the mixed batch rejected during dispatch. Retry that failed attempt to reproduce the second refusal. Refs #17725 for the existing saved-input Retry contract. This change repairs the later queue merge and its retained failed state. Related #17878 covers snapshot continuation and later turns in recovered directories; its workspace repair can be reviewed independently. ## What Changed - Keep deferred chat Retry promotion scoped to its exact receipt. Ordinary board Retry coalescing retains its existing behavior. - Let a new explicit task Retry restore a historical mixed batch only after strict never-started, source, ownership, allocation, board-comment and prior-delivery checks. - Preserve failed-run history and original budget-skipped receipts. Record restored queue ownership in activity. - Add production queue and HTTP-route regressions. Update the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Before the repair, the deferred ten-input batch failed before identity initialization. The same regression now reaches the real initializer with the exact GitHub batch. The independent board message then reaches its own initializer in a separate turn. - Before historical recovery, ordinary task Retry refused the persisted mixed failed batch. The repair passes that case without changing the failed run. HTTP duplicate requests retain one Retry owner. An additional compatibility probe restored the old queue candidate predicate and removed all historical mixed-state fixture writes: the real producer created the exact batch and the complete historical HTTP recovery case passed (1/1). The fixed-source historical fixture now uses the production serializers. - The affected Retry group passes 86 cases on commit `325c00158df5569f5b42731cda4ecc4584909d99`, including already-coalesced external receipts. Refusals cover edited sources, active controllers, unresolved allocations, changed receipts, foreign external receipt ownership and prior delivery of either board or GitHub input, including immutable budget-skipped receipts. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass with these source changes. Map, module-boundary and diff checks pass. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was started. The host cannot create additional PostgreSQL semaphores; database-dependent suites fail or skip at startup. The affected database group runs against a separate migrated PostgreSQL 17.10 test database with Node 24.22.0 on macOS arm64. - The regression deliberately stops after the real identity initializer to avoid provider allocation. It proves HTTP, queue, source authorization, identity and separate continuation behavior. It does not claim a live model result, GitHub publication, deployment or recovery of the original hosted task. - Current head `325c00158df5569f5b42731cda4ecc4584909d99`: all checks are terminal with no failures or pending checks; required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` pass. Conditional Storybook checks are skipped. Greptile and Paperclip each reviewed this exact commit at 5/5. Both earlier review threads are resolved. Paperclip retains one optional robustness suggestion for batch ordering; the verified historical producer order remains a strict recovery contract. ## Risks Restoring input could repeat work if the prior turn had executed. The existing strict bootstrap proof rejects provider output, native state, process or controller evidence, and allocations. Restoration also checks current external authority, unchanged board revisions and other run history. An uncertain executor remains held. No migration, provider fallback or relaxation of dispatch validation is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. A separately shared regression supplied independent reproduction evidence. ## 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 (affected database regressions; full local suite has the host limitation described 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>	2026-10-27 11:34:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ac22b1b1f9	fix: preserve recovered input and task directory continuity (#17878 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/60/changes/paperclip/60 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Recovery must preserve files and the authority of each human request. > - Some failed native runs preserve a snapshot without completing native copyback. > - The saved input could remain blocked after recovery settled. > - A later turn could also treat the new task directory as a Git base because it inherited the agent default. > - This change continues the same authorized input once and keeps its saved directory usable on later turns and Retry after a pre-provider preparation failure. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14905. Related: #17724 covers cleanup handoff after native copyback. This change covers snapshot-only preservation and later turns in its directory. #17814 covers a separate same-run checkpoint restore defect. The open legacy-adapter change in #13291 does not cover this native saved-input path. ## What Changed - Forward the trusted deferred inbound request to native continuation admission. Verify the exact unconsumed receipt and its source, actor, company, agent, and task. - Let historical holds for the same failed run use its settled recovery strategy. Keep each controller and termination check. - Keep the old native sync proof unchanged. Attach recovered files through the verified snapshot path in a fresh attempt. - Recognize only the current same-task, active local directory in the canonical task or attempt namespace. Keep it on later turns instead of applying inherited Git defaults. - Keep the current healthy directory when canonical Retry follows the exact pre-allocation Git-base failure. Require the committed source link, strict server-produced failure events, no execution evidence or unfinished owner, and the current canonical binding. Recognize the known configuration warning without accepting arbitrary or provider-origin warnings. - Keep owned-directory readiness separate from repository-free strategy selection. A repaired real Git checkout with explicit task/project/assignee Git policy uses normal Git validation and preparation. Preserve explicit fresh, new sources, immutable native bindings, and locked path/binding checks. - Add real PostgreSQL and filesystem regressions for admission, file preservation, and the complete later-turn heartbeat policy chain. ## Verification - Real PostgreSQL callback/queue regressions are RED on unchanged production and GREEN with this repair: one successor from the same authenticated saved request, with filesystem snapshot preservation. The 24-case source/Retry matrix passes and retains termination, allocation, generation and revocation negatives. - Actual browser use exposed both later-turn Git-base failure and canonical Retry selecting an empty sibling. The real heartbeat selection/configuration/preparation/Retry regressions reproduce each. All 81 workspace-preparation cases passed before the final repaired-Git edge; all 17 final affected phase-chain/safety cases pass, including that new case. Its finalized oracle checks effective Git policy, an actual Git checkout and saved-file bytes. Known preparation warnings pass; unknown/provider warnings and execution contradictions do not certify reuse. - Full workspace typecheck, full build with matching `5342bd52da` stamp, maps and diff checks pass. Runtime commit `5342bd52da` passed CI with 53 successful checks and 2 conditional Storybook skips, and Greptile 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The follow-up `9096fe8f62` removes only the feature/access map additions as requested; runtime and test files are byte-identical. Map structural and diff checks pass. Greptile reviewed this exact final commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All test and build jobs passed. The final required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` aggregate gates are queued without runners; one bounded gate-only requeue retained every successful job. GitHub auto-merge is enabled and waits for those gates. - Normal UI acceptance on exact final source with actual OpenCode, configured DeepSeek model and Daytona passes both turns: snapshot continuation writes a useful review/report; reload and a second ordinary message retain the same workspace and logical native/provider session. All six files remain byte-identical, the report's computed SHA and unpredictable marker are confirmed, the concrete result is actual 250 versus correct 350, native finalization/copyback commit, and normal lease cleanup succeeds. A separate normal UI canonical Retry on preceding `9ac1d29147` preserves the current directory/report/marker and writes a continuity note; the final Git-policy split leaves that exercised non-Git path unchanged. - Boundaries: local app/server source with real remote native execution; seeded historical failure/stop receipts and actual stored snapshot, not a replay of the original staging allocation or external review publication. Prior local verification rewrote installed dependency metadata; its generated lock diff was retained and reverted. Final launch/end source and dependency metadata hashes match; no installed dependency byte-identity claim beyond that observed freeze. - Required full local suite was attempted but remains incomplete: embedded PostgreSQL bootstrap failures prevented assertions in several suites, so only its owned test tree was stopped. A prior workspace-recovery test timed out and the following seed collided with an active hold; both unchanged tests passed in isolation. Runtime-head `5342bd52da` hosted CI passed the full gate; the documentation-only follow-up waits for the aggregate jobs noted above. Its [first Rust attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40528918372/job/122276159874) failed an unchanged ACPX shutdown cleanup assertion; the preceding same-Rust head passed. [One bounded Rust-only retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40528918372/job/122281990961) passed. No test assertion or production guard was weakened. ## Risks - Incorrect input authority could repeat work. The existing owner reauthorizes the same durable source; admission verifies its receipt under the task lock. - Directory recognition could select unrelated files. It requires the current scoped binding and canonical namespace, then preparation rechecks the stored binding and path under the source lock. Missing or symlinked retained roots are not recreated. - Snapshot preservation does not certify native copyback or old external outcomes. The old run and its unknown outcomes stay unchanged. Unconfirmed controllers or termination remain blocked. - There is no schema migration or new public API. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. The host does not expose the context-window size. ## 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 — targeted suites; the full local attempt limitation and final CI proof 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 - [ ] 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 16:02:43 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	13709b4c7a	feat(connections): let agents configure connections within delegated authority (#17737 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections provide governed tools, chat channels, model accounts, and gateways. > - Several management routes require a human board actor even when an agent has the required grant. > - Default agents must configure these resources within the responsible user's authority. > - This pull request adds a shared authorization path to the existing REST and native API surface. > - Human authentication, execution approvals, and local host boundaries remain enforced. > - The benefit is that a standard agent can complete authorized setup with a bounded human handoff. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server authorization, connection services, shared contracts, native API discovery, database schema. Problem or motivation Connection administration is available in the web app but often unavailable to agents. Agent grants, responsible-user authority, credential ownership, and actor attribution need separate checks. Opening gateway-token creation also requires preserving the issuing agent's delegated authority during token use. Proposed solution Use the existing authorization evaluator for every connection family. Enforce current responsible-user authority, effective trust, grant scope, resource visibility, and target-agent access. Keep existing agent grants unchanged. Expose authorized configuration through default `search_api` and `call_api`. Save human authentication steps and let agents continue after completion. Roadmap alignment This change completes the API access path for the existing Connected Apps, Personal & Shared AI Accounts, and governed MCP Gateway capabilities in `ROADMAP.md`. It follows the maintainer's requested design. Related work: #11899 enforces connection execution access and creator/manager rules; this PR extends agent management across connection families. It does not replace that execution-policy work. ## What Changed - Add shared connection management context and mandatory responsible-user, trust, scope, and target checks. - Allow authorized agents to configure tool, chat/email, GitHub/Slack, AI, profile, and gateway resources through existing routes. - Preserve human credential ownership and record the actual agent, responsible user, and run or key in audit data. - Preserve saved browser authentication handoffs and callback session checks. - Bind agent-issued durable gateway tokens to their responsible user and recheck delegated authority at use. - Add explicit REST transport and management capability metadata, built-in guidance, and sensitive-response handling. - Intersect caller and endpoint-agent Slack test/invitation policies, including independent and shared rates. Require the addressed human’s current endpoint identity link before completing identity handoffs. - Add production-authenticated integration scenarios. Companion #17739 contains the saved setup UI (including the required human import/rotation step), product and permission documentation, catalog/Vercel credential and callback ownership, and operation maps to keep each review below 100 files. Both PRs must ship together; merge this implementation first, then its companion. ## Verification - Current implementation head: `2ecd6451d0d0c8d82121a4e3fa4ce94c5befbbd6`, including master `ea727dc3c2`, 99 files. The latest follow-up fixes the two valid findings from the preceding f9 review. Exact-head Greptile has completed at5/5 with no findings and Superagent passed. Full exact-head Linux CI workflow40446606056 completed SUCCESS; only the queued external Paperclip Review remains pending; earlier Linux passes do not qualify this successor. - Latest preserved-stack verification passed 2,165 tests in fresh PostgreSQL: 70 actual-auth scenarios, 27 OpenAPI contracts, 2,022 native API tests and 46 saved GitHub wizard cases. 141 existing gateway/policy acceptance tests also passed. Workspace typecheck/build, maps and token gates passed. The first workspace typecheck was blocked by sandbox tsx IPC permissions; its authorized rerun passed. This is focused local evidence; the full Linux CI matrix is still required. - Issuer/target gateway policy regressions were red before the fix. Both decisions now intersect, including Block/Ask first/rates, same credential identity and current token/user/agent authority after approval. Invocations retain their token and actual requesting agent; deleted tokens fail closed. Thirteen actual-auth cases cover revocation, narrowed scope, approvals, shared rates and board compatibility. Intermediate missing-token attribution, review-context and implicit-session actor failures remain in the qualification record; all final cases pass. - Activity pagination now retains a bounded cursor across private-only windows. The actual-JWT regression reaches three older readable events after 27 private ones without exposing private details. A native device-login regression was red for plaintext receipts; local check and test-call results now use existing protected-response handling. The passing actual-auth case proves encrypted persistence, exact replay, redacted history and no response asset. - Previous-head `5b55195593` Linux CI initially failed e2e shard 4/8 in the existing connection-intent continuation test: periodic recovery queued a repair at 01:21:47, the scripted journey completed the task at 01:21:48, and the extra queued run was cancelled at 01:21:49 because the task was terminal. The assertion selected that latest cancelled run. GitHub refused the first attempt while the workflow was nonterminal. After completion, the single evidence-supported failed-job rerun was accepted as attempt 2 on the same head (workflow 40431202466). The failed shard and final E2E aggregate passed on attempt 2, and the complete Linux workflow for that head is successful. The original failure remains part of qualification. No additional unchanged-code rerun will be used for this failure. - Companion CI also has an unchanged login-cleanup idleness timeout, retained in its qualification record. That same 16-case suite passed in this parent Linux run and a fresh local database. Both preceding workflows passed after their single failed-job reruns as attempt 2; the original failures remain recorded. No additional unchanged-code rerun was used. - Migration `0380_broken_aqueduct.sql` was regenerated through the repository workflow after master took 0379 for project Git authorization. It adds the responsible-user column with `IF NOT EXISTS`, preserves upstream migrations, and satisfies snapshot retention and migration safety checks. - Upstream published Copilot v62 and v63 identities remain byte-for-byte unchanged. The combined guidance is now v64, digest `sha256:22e31f95ef972bcead98a4a707c9f33433558fd111e390e027a2bbb4346e112a`. The normal shared TypeScript/Rust identity check and 61 Copilot installation tests passed. The old source-identity assertion first failed against unchanged published v63; regenerating a new v64 preserves the published release. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`, map validation, and UI token gates passed on the final combined stack after the upstream merge. Node 24.22.1 / pnpm 9.15.4 were used. - Earlier 82 API/OpenAPI tests passed in fresh PostgreSQL 18: 55 assembled-server scenarios and 27 contracts. They use real persistent agent keys, run JWTs, human sessions, production defaults, and deterministic provider fixtures. No actor injection establishes access. - The new email regression was red before per-account scope filtering. The Arcade regression was red before human ownership and inventory-key fixes; it also verifies actual-agent audit identity and a human-session inventory read. The activity regression measured 200 authorization checks before the fix and one afterward for the same one-item page. - 82 GitHub UI tests passed, including all three new failed-replacement regressions that were red before their fix. The UI preserves an earlier copy only after confirming its committed generation. Changed or unreadable results block copying and reconnecting until reconciled. Human-only secret responses now include their nonsecret committed generation. - Private test status now rechecks the originating principal and linked task, including mandatory agent/responsible-user privacy. Cross-agent tests require the full caller tool access decision and the same credential identity, regardless of auth label; caller and target policies/approvals and rate limits apply before execution and after human approval. A profile-only precondition was found to reject valid allow-policy and scoped-grant access and has been removed. Both permitted-access cases and a no-auth-label identity regression were red before the correction; caller-specific Block still prevents provider execution. The private-status regression was also red before its fix. - The tool-activity regression measured 100 capability decisions and 102 run captures on a 100-event page before the fix. It now uses two task decisions and at most two captures while retaining the same 50 visible events, private-event filtering, and 403 after audit-grant revocation. The regression was red before request-context reuse and task-decision sharing; final server typecheck/build also pass. - Generic chat configure/reconnect now hands agent-supplied verification credentials to the addressed human before provider work or vault changes. Actual key/JWT regressions were red for Slack signing-key replacement and generic channel secret-reference rebinding. They now prove unchanged refs and vaulted signing value, human setup, permitted agent bot-token repair, and governed test messages. All 82 API/OpenAPI cases pass in fresh PostgreSQL. Eight native receipt protections and final server typecheck/build also pass. - The preceding review found that old healthy state could retire a credential-entry card before a human changed anything. The actual-JWT regression was red. Saved field generations now change only with protected values and commit with refs plus a verification fence; retries retain the baseline. Old health, bot-token repair and unchanged entry stay pending. New signing verification and current authority permit continuation. A separate red race proved that user revocation during provider authentication could return 403 after refs changed; authority is now checked before persistence and inside the credential transaction. The final 82 API/OpenAPI cases, four neighboring real-database Slack/GitHub lifecycle cases, and final server typecheck/build pass. - A preceding full run crossed a rate-window boundary. Database rows prove one consumed slot at 23:35 and another at 23:36 for the same policy/bucket. Only Date is frozen in the rate test cases; transport and asynchronous timers remain real. Production rate behavior is unchanged, and the final full run passes. An intermediate fixture failure that overwrote hidden generation metadata with an API projection is retained in the qualification record. - Linux CI on an earlier head found two rate-admission assertions that omitted the newly persisted bucket key. The failures were reproduced locally; both assertions now verify the exact actor/tool bucket and all 49 policy-service tests pass. The companion qualification record retains the initial and intermediate failures. Catalog creator attribution is preserved in the companion to keep this implementation review at 99 files. - The latest review reproduced three regressions before repair: complete human replacements failed on unavailable old signing secrets, fresh GitHub links incorrectly selected reconnect, and different credential-entry requests shared an idempotency key. Each old protected ref now has a narrow known-unavailable fallback; unexpected resolver failures and company/scope violations still abort. Fresh imports keep their credential form, configured endpoints keep reconnect, and canonical field sets/completion modes distinguish handoffs while matching retries retain their baseline. All 55 actual-auth scenarios and 27 separately run OpenAPI contracts pass, as do server typecheck/build. Companion #17739 also passes all 41 wizard tests including actual fresh-form submission, UI typecheck, maps and token gates. Earlier red results and a mistyped OpenAPI filename are retained in qualification. - The configured GitHub handoff regression was red in the browser-component tests and actual-auth link/persistence tests. Saved links now name requested fields and all/any completion mode; the companion form submits those supplied fields through reconnect and retains other saved credentials. Webhook/client-secret reconnect remains human-only; first-setup secret restrictions remain. All 46 wizard tests pass, including combined modes and legacy links. A duplicate review referenced the older companion bf760912; the current form is already fixed, linked in the reply, and its thread is resolved. - Linux CI on `bf760912` failed automatic Slack provisioning because vault persistence cleared an already verified manifest-update challenge. The same regression was reproduced locally. The provider-owned helper now preserves proof only for the current signing fingerprint and callback URL. Eight existing compatibility cases pass, including this case and initial GitHub secret rejection. The first uncommitted GitHub-field variant also failed that initial boundary and was narrowed to reconnect; both failures remain in qualification. - The upstream merge conflicted only in generated migration metadata. Upstream 0379 is preserved, normal generation/pruning produced 0380, and two repeated applications of the idempotent additive SQL passed. The final combined stack passed 128 tests (55 actual-auth, 27 OpenAPI and 46 wizard cases) in fresh PostgreSQL. Eight Google UI cases also pass; the two protocol cases could not initialize embedded PostgreSQL in this fresh local attempt. Their earlier passing evidence remains historical; fresh Linux CI must execute them. Vercel personal credential attribution is preserved in companion #17739 with its other ownership/consent follow-ups, keeping this PR at 99 files. - The suite covers fresh defaults, restricted users/agents, scopes, personal isolation, token revocation, human handoffs, callback replay, execution approvals, authorized self-targeted policy changes, self-approval denial, and current authority before commit. Reproduce API checks with `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/connection-management.integration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`, using a fresh database through `PAPERCLIP_CONNECTION_MANAGEMENT_TEST_DATABASE_URL` or the default embedded test database. - Companion #17739 also records consent separately from token refresh so saved Google choices survive refresh. Its eight service-picker and two local-HTTP OAuth tests pass; both new UI cases were red before the fix. Normal migration generation confirms no SQL change is needed for the additive JSON metadata. - The integration module shares one assembled server, authentication factory, and provider lifecycle to preserve the HTTP-to-vault-to-task-continuation proof. A reused external database caused a Slack fixture identity conflict; the fresh final run passed. Earlier fixture/transport and contract-update failures remain in the companion qualification record. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` attempt remains blocked by macOS embedded PostgreSQL's host semaphore limit. It is not a clean pass. The fresh Linux CI matrix must complete. Provider fixtures do not prove live setup or an empirical LLM success rate. - A current-head completed Paperclip assessment is not yet recorded. Its earlier external recovery boundary has not been bypassed, and no incomplete assessment is reported as passing. The user authorized both merges when checks pass; merge this implementation first, then replay, retarget, and requalify companion #17739 against the squash-merged master. - After the master refresh, local workspace typecheck/build, 97 actual-auth/OpenAPI cases and 141 gateway/policy cases pass. The original fixed database port was occupied; Docker assigned a free localhost port. The first neighbor setup command could not resolve root `tsx`, leaving its schema uninitialized; the built database package migrated the separate fixture and all unchanged cases passed. Both setup failures are retained in qualification. Fresh Linux CI remains required; no full local test-sweep pass is claimed. - The f9 Greptile review scored 2/5 for two reproduced findings: Slack test sends skipped the caller’s tool policy, and healthy App credentials completed an unconfirmed identity handoff. Both are fixed in this head and have resolved evidence threads ([Slack](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17737#discussion_r4384927765), [identity](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17737#discussion_r4384927895)). Actual key/JWT cases cover twelve Slack caller/target/recipient combinations; the human-session GitHub OAuth callback alone remains pending until explicit confirmation. All 99 API/OpenAPI tests (72 actual-auth + 27 contracts), workspace typecheck and build pass. On the combined companion, all four focused cases (including the twelve Slack combinations), typecheck/build and maps also pass. The continuation suite’s 50 embedded-PG cases were skipped because its database could not start locally; fresh Linux CI must run them. Initial fixture credential-collision and audit-projection assertion failures are retained with the red reproductions in the companion qualification record. No full local sweep or live consent is claimed. ## Risks - The maintainer explicitly confirmed authorized policy administration, including self-targeted changes that loosen controls. These writes require management grants and the responsible user’s current authority. Agents cannot approve their own governed action requests or edit their own principal permission grants. The actual-auth regression exercises both permitted administration and those denials. - This is a broad authorization change. Incorrect scope or owner resolution could deny permitted setup or expose another user's resources. Integration cases cover both permitted and denied requests with actual authentication. - The additive nullable gateway-token column does not infer identities for legacy clients or backfill agent grants. Legacy agent tokens without a responsible user fail closed. - Provider fixtures test supported setup and callback contracts. They do not prove live provider availability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment ID or context-window size. ## 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 — focused suites above; full local sweep remains blocked as documented - [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 — exact `2ecd6451d0` Linux CI completed SUCCESS; external Paperclip Review is still queued - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — exact `2ecd6451d0` review completed; both f9 findings have resolved evidence replies - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 08:20:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	db32bdf98b	fix(github): recover review replay and preserve passive summaries (#17726 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/8/changes/paperclip/8 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub tools save review assessments and publish their confirmed receipts. > - A timeout before publication staging can leave an invocation with no saved publication. > - Exact replay must repeat only the authorized preflight and converge on one publication. > - PR requests also share an App-owned summary comment. Progress and maintenance must preserve its final content. > - A native turn can intentionally wait for an author without sending another reply. > - This pull request repairs unstaged replay and prevents queued or passive-wait notices from replacing a published assessment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related repairs: Refs #16883, Refs #16284, Refs #16275 recover saved publication receipts. Refs #17183 covers unavailable approved replay output. Refs #17714 fixes a separate publication lock-order problem. What happened? Exact review retries can return null `begin_review` output or `github_publication_unavailable` after an upstream read times out before publication staging. Separately, response maintenance can replace a completed PR assessment with “Review queued…” or a generic missing-response notice after an authorized no-new-work reply. The latter run can correctly commit a passive wait while its external summary is still overwritten. Expected behavior Exact retries repeat only the authorized preflight. A saved or uncertain publication keeps its existing recovery owner. Queued acknowledgements preserve final App-owned summary content. A committed native passive wait settles its current acknowledgement without writing a response or treating an old summary as a new-run reply. Success before presentation remains held until a durable decision exists; exact current-run confirmed receipts can retire their placeholders. Genuine missing/error responses retain fallback handling. Steps to reproduce 1. Hold a GitHub metadata read until an authorized gateway call times out before publication staging. Repeat the exact request. 2. Publish a valid PR assessment. Send an ordinary author reply that asks for no new work and no duplicate comment. 3. Commit the native `response_wake` with a no-comment server presentation decision. Run response maintenance twice. 4. The base returns the invalid replay result or replaces the assessment with progress/fallback text. Paperclip version or commit Replay regression: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. Maintenance regression: the previous PR head `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb`. Both use real PostgreSQL and simulated GitHub responses. The maintenance failure was also observed in normal hosted use. Deployment mode Source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL 18, followed by a dedicated QA qualification. No production rollout is included. ## What Changed - Route exact `begin_review` replay through its typed owner. Repeat unstaged preflight only with the complete request digest and no successful invocation result. - Preserve current policy, immutable assessments, unique action keys, receipt recovery, and provider leases. - Preserve a verified App/marker-owned final shared PR comment during acknowledgements. New canonical assessments can still replace it at the same or a new head. - Project only a bounded server-committed native wait decision. Settle the current main-PR acknowledgement without provider writes or a fabricated current-run reply receipt. - Hold succeeded native runs while presentation is undecided, including the committed-before-presentation window. An exact current-run confirmed receipt can still retire its placeholder. - Keep missing/error fallback and uncertain publication checks. Update the bot guide, execution semantics, maps, and real-database regressions. ## Verification - Causal RED: exact begin replay returned null; exact unstaged submit replay returned unavailable. The new real-database maintenance test then reproduced the exact generic summary overwrite. Its first repair also exposed an earlier queued-acknowledgement overwrite. Both publication boundaries are repaired. Four additional ordering regressions reproduced the generic PATCH while native presentation was undecided; the corrected tests hold until the same row settles. - Local GREEN: 196 complete GitHub workflow cases pass on an empty migrated PostgreSQL fixture. This includes queued/running preservation, both success-before-presentation windows, null/scalar/invalid decisions, exact-current versus predecessor receipts, durable acknowledgement settlement, repeated no-op maintenance, eventual genuine missing/error fallback, pending writes and same/new-head canonical replacement. Workspace typecheck, exact-head build, maps and whitespace checks pass. The real database respects the actual selected-column projection. - Command: `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL=<owned-postgres-18> pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub agent review workflow'`. - CI/review: historical heads `c7553d2325df53d98d9febff7023ade4b1e704eb` and `4d00d3af6f2ccbda8f38a98f81d392d82dd3c59c` had Greptile 5/5. Final readiness head `2d267f1e4aa0b835a11aede97798fbd800d9cd96` passed independent source review with no actionable finding and fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero unresolved threads; all 54 check runs pass with 2 intended skips; Snyk is successful and the merge state is CLEAN. The dedicated QA destination acceptance also passed. - Full-suite limitation: the earlier `pnpm test:run` attempt produced no final summary. Its retained log reports failures in unchanged workspace-runtime tests and 15-second gateway-audit and stale-question timeouts. Their cause remains unknown. Do not treat the targeted results as a full local-suite pass. - Live evidence and limits: normal native OpenCode/DeepSeek review delivery published a useful assessment, inline finding and App check at the exact reviewed head. A separate ordinary author reply delivered a useful answer and settled. Those are ordinary delivery proofs, not live injected-timeout proofs. A later no-new-work reply exposed the maintenance overwrite. The final combined source `070e9c4ead9341cd497b23f533a91bf194475e79` includes the exact publication repair and passed normal review → ordinary author reply → quiet destination acceptance. A normal current-head review restored the legitimate assessment; the ordinary no-new-work reply then committed a passive wait without new GitHub tools. The same 1,436-character summary stayed identical while queued/running, after terminal settlement, and more than 3 minutes 50 seconds after successful cleanup. Review rows and receipts stayed unchanged, with no owner, live run or queued input. The timeout fault fixtures prove replay and single-publication safety. The historical first upstream timeout producer remains unknown. The live board reads do not expose the raw acknowledgement action row: its terminal cancellation and next-pass no-op are real-PostgreSQL fixture proofs, while the hosted checks prove actual destination stability. The hosted journey did not inject a timeout or pause the terminal/presentation writer window. Private destinations, raw receipts and internal task identifiers remain outside this PR. ## Risks - Original and repeated metadata reads can overlap. The immutable assessment, action uniqueness and publication lease must remain authoritative. - Missing complete request identity or a deleted completed receipt remains held. The gateway does not reconstruct receipts or relax approval. - Passive suppression requires actual native mode/committed phase, current source ownership and the server's no-comment decision. It applies only to the main PR review surface. Uncertain current writes stay held; other surfaces keep normal placeholder retirement. - There is no migration, credential change, dependency or new retry scheduler. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) in Codex assisted with diagnosis, implementation, tests, and source review. It used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The context window size is 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-26 22:22:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	208a093d19	fix(chat): preserve resumed review waits and retry newer saved input (#17725 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/36/changes/paperclip/36 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review agents publish findings and wait for an authorized reply or head change. > - Review tools could retain the requester after resume while completion lost that same wait proof. > - A yielded report could then queue its own continuation or repeat a missing-wait error. > - Ordinary Retry could also select an older failed turn while a newer saved request had no admission. > - This change shares the existing authority proofs and canonical admission owners. > - Current access, publication, execution and budget gates remain required. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17318. Builds on the canonical saved-input retry owner in #17733. Related #16550 covers deferred legacy comments after ownership waits. The separate recovery repair in #17724 owns the cleanup-to-saved-input handoff; this PR does not add a second admission owner. A resumed review could publish an assessment, then turn its `response_wake` into an immediate `issue_status_changed` wake. A provider that omitted its continuation could instead repeat a completion error. A newer linked-human message saved during a budget hold could also remain unstarted because Retry selected the older failed source. ## What Changed - Resolve passive review waits through the accepted requester ledger used by GitHub tools. Require the latest reviewed head, exact company, task, agent, repository and processed publication under current access. - Fill omitted/null yielded continuation from that server proof. Permit an inherited normal tree resume only through its accepted parent identity. Permit an ordinary follow-up only after this run has a processed useful reply linked to its exact inbound message. Reject acknowledgements, partial assessments, pending or uncertain writes as that reply proof. - Recheck the same run/review/head/source proof during feedback, finalization and final status commit. Preserve explicit malformed-input rejection and Done policy. Add no monitor permission or publication grant. - Keep heartbeat and publication projections narrow. Preserve both published Copilot v62 identities and generate source-bound v63 from the pinned merged base. No v63 live qualification is claimed. - Certify the structured isolated-directory binding failure only at its pre-allocation boundary and only through canonical task Retry. Other workspace validation reasons and unknown effects remain denied. - Route Retry to eligible newer saved input through the existing canonical owner. Preserve the old result and skipped receipt. Require current principal, source, App, runtime fence, budget, native ownership and exact cleanup proof. - Recover absent historical App metadata only through an earlier trusted processed response receipt and an immutable non-null endpoint claim. Explicit malformed or conflicting metadata stays denied. - Revalidate execution through the exact claimed wake, coalesced task Retry and resolved user-continuation receipt after admission. A second normal Retry can recover the exact never-started authorization failure with unchanged saved input. Require empty execution evidence, exact diagnostics and no allocated or active executor. - Explain when a recorded result prevents exact replay. Ordinary board Retry directs a new task message to continue from saved work. Inherited requester identity alone never grants replay. - Keep accepted board-message preparation failures with the canonical task Retry owner. Certify the exact unchanged comment, original user wake, accepted same-user identity and absence of provider execution. Pin that source, recheck it at admission, and bind identity initialization to the coalesced intent and exact claimed successor receipt. Uncertifiable sources retain an actionable fresh-message refusal. - Return safe named authority categories for board Retry refusals. Update execution documentation and capability maps. Add no schema or polling loop. ## Verification - A fresh external review request exposed a separate isolated-directory preparation failure before allocation. Its first normal Retry saved an intent but admitted no successor. This follow-up certifies only that exact structured preparation boundary through the existing canonical Retry owner, with trusted failed settlement and no executor, lease, result or output. A real HTTP/queue regression reproduces the missing successor before the repair. Twenty-three current-source safety cases and the final 98-case Retry/HTTP group pass, including a fresh click after a denied intent, source revocation, accepted results and the older direct API remaining denied. The warning case uses actual configuration preparation and production event append; unknown warning shape or provider provenance stays denied. Full workspace typecheck, build, maps and diff checks pass. Renewed hosted normal Retry now succeeds on the final combined source: it preserves the exact saved request and linked requester, starts one native successor in a fresh attempt workspace, publishes the current-head 2/5 assessment and commits In review with passive response wake. - A later hosted normal Retry published a low-score assessment but lost its accepted source identity because the previous attempt failed before identity initialization. It repeated continuation errors, then submitted Done. This is failed acceptance, not a successful qualification. The initializer now retains the exact source only after execution-time failed-chat Retry authorization; generic Retry and Done policy are unchanged. A real queue/initializer regression fails with a null source on the previous code and passes with the newer saved source. Two real database completion cases verify that source yields the authoritative wait and commits In review. Renewed hosted normal Retry now retains the accepted source and exposes the authoritative current-review wait. It completed after two semantic feedback corrections (wrong contract revision, then wrong criterion IDs); the correct contract was present in emitted input. The third finish was accepted and committed In review, with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation. - Repeated board-message preparation failures now walk their canonical intent, failed dispatch and accepted parent identity, rechecking each contained predecessor. A production queue regression fails the second ordinary HTTP Retry before the repair and passes afterward. Changed source, contradictory execution evidence and cyclic receipts remain denied; traversal stops after twenty links. - New inherited omission cases failed before the repair. The final full PostgreSQL 18 wait/status suite passes 252 tests under Node 24.22. It covers omitted/null input, malformed-first recovery, same-head resume, exact-source replies, changed heads, revoked access, pending/uncertain/mixed publications, final commit revalidation, no duplicate review and no self-wake. - 15 existing publication tests passed before the pinned merge on a separate fresh database. They retain default partial-delivery and failure-fallback behavior. Context reads remain below the unchanged 16 KiB heartbeat and publication response limits with large saved output present. - Saved-input tests cover a real signed PR webhook, production accounting-budget refusal, normal policy recovery and canonical Retry. Historical producer-shaped tests prove the missing-App case red, then check trusted prior receipts and malformed, late, revoked or mismatched proof. A broader order-coupled test was reproduced on the prior source; its global fault injector now targets its own authorization query. The 43-case sequence passes without changing production behavior or its safety assertions. - New signed-ingress and real heartbeat execution tests reproduced the admitted-successor failure, then the next normal Retry failure. The final pinned merged source passes 249 full GitHub review/publication and Retry cases on a fresh database, including all 49 saved-input cases. A separate 74-case Retry/HTTP run also passes. Exact dispatch negatives cover source, company, agent, task, successor, receipt, pause, assignment, accepted success, controller and cleanup proof. Bootstrap contradictions remain denied. The canonical Retry suite passes 16 cases through its supported external PostgreSQL test connection. - The normal board HTTP route reproduced the unusable inherited-result refusal. It now returns actionable guidance without starting a successor. The actual UI Retry hook and banner tests pass 12 cases. - A production-shaped accepted board comment followed by a pre-provider qualification failure reproduced HTTP 409 before the repair. The final real HTTP/queue test certifies one canonical successor and preserves the accepted identity. It rejects changed source, actor, task, agent, result, controller, process, profile, allocation and receipt evidence. A post-acceptance source change keeps the same intent pending. Execution revalidation rejects removed or mismatched proof. The probe stops deliberately after production identity initialization; it does not claim provider execution. The final source passes the 75-case Retry group, the focused two-case board/inherited-policy group and 19 canonical Retry cases. Full workspace typecheck, build and map checks pass. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Map, module-boundary and diff checks pass. Full local `pnpm test:run` remains unverified. The 256-case explicit-native suite cannot initialize its packaged PostgreSQL because libzstd is absent; an existing command-scoped fallback did not resolve it. Current-head remote full-suite checks are required. Merged-source full GitHub+Retry (249), separate Retry/HTTP (74), full wait/status (252), profile/history and completion (75), and visible Retry hook/banner (12) checks pass. The fresh owned PostgreSQL 18 databases applied all 377 migrations. - Actual Rust Runner, OpenCode 1.18.34 and exact DeepSeek used unchanged production-generated synthetic contexts. Resume finished with an explicit server wait. The author-reply trial omitted continuation twice: its first report failed the existing empty-criteria check; the corrected second report still omitted continuation and received the exact server wait. It completed once with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation. Controller acknowledgments were synthetic; these probes do not establish hosted publication or board state. - Hosted combined testing proved automatic admission of the exact saved author reply, a useful GitHub answer and committed passive wait. It required two malformed-continuation rejections before a nullish fallback succeeded. A later normal Pause/Resume completed in one finish with explicit response_wake and no new review/comment. The admitted normal Retry then exposed the execution guard gap repaired here. Those remain checkpoint results. On the final combined source, renewed normal Retry completed actual native provider work and GitHub publication, committed the passive wait, released ownership and cleaned up its environment. A subsequent ordinary unmentioned author reply woke once, made no GitHub tool calls or new assessment, and completed its first finish with an explicit response wake. Both exact leases expired with successful cleanup and the queue was empty. However, final destination inspection found a separate automatic fallback overwrote the existing summary with a generic no-final-response message. External summary preservation therefore remains failed acceptance; the separate publication repair in #17726 owns that producer. Full combined publication preservation has not passed. These hosted runs include the pinned-base native additions; they do not qualify Copilot v63. - Current-head automated review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. All current-head CI gates passed (54 successful checks/contexts, four skipped, none pending). The earlier login-cleanup idle-work assertion also reproduced locally while its controlled baseline passed; its cause remains unknown, but the exact assertion passed in the fresh current-head CI shard. No timeout, assertion or production workaround was added. This PR is ready for review within its source, authority, native finalization, state, wake and cleanup scope. The independent automatic fallback publication regression is tracked by #17726; no complete combined workflow pass is claimed. ## Risks - The latest saved review defines the durable head boundary. Ingress must record a new head before admission. A reply receipt proves delivery only for its exact saved source; a shared GitHub comment ID alone cannot authorize this wait. - Historical App recovery cannot infer identity without direct proof or an earlier valid server response receipt. It never replays that response. - This does not infer review-score policy from instructions or override Done. No deployment, merge or repair of historical tasks is claimed by the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing and test execution. The context-window size is 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 #` / `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 (focused database and native suites; full local suite limitation described 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 (verified on immutable latest head) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (verified on the latest head) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-26 22:22:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f0877a9c7c	fix: recover native work and requalify saved computers (#17724 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/32/changes/paperclip/32 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and preserves their work after an interruption. > - Native Stop must confirm termination and save the workspace. > - Task and run views must show the current recovery receipt. > - A new external reply can arrive while that cleanup is pending. > - The reply must return to its original chat owner after cleanup. > - A successful fresh retry also becomes the task’s bound workspace for its next ordinary turn. > - Managed computer updates can invalidate a saved snapshot qualification. > - This pull request fixes those instructions, acknowledgements, handoffs and the existing native-agent Test path. > - The operator can continue with new input while the stopped turn remains preserved. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Stopped native runs could keep the initial workspace-repair instruction after files were recovered. Native Stop could also leave the shared cancellation state at requested after remote termination was confirmed. A new GitHub reply saved during cleanup could then remain queued because cleanup did not ask its original inbound owner to reconsider the receipt. After a managed snapshot update, an existing native agent could also need qualification while the generic environment Test required instance-admin access. Expected behavior Show the current saved-work state. Acknowledge Stop only after exact termination proof. Let an authorized operator use the existing saved-agent Run test to qualify its current computer. After cleanup, recheck the saved reply's current authority and admit it once as new input. Preserve the stopped run and uncertain external effects. Steps to reproduce 1. Stop an active native turn before it returns a semantic result. 2. Send a new authorized external reply while cleanup is pending. 3. Let workspace recovery and provider cleanup finish. Inspect the run instruction, Stop acknowledgement and queued reply. Related work: #17594 preserves native processes through controller outages. #17401 addresses a separate bootstrap failure. This pull request does not replace those fixes. ## What Changed - Use the exact run's workspace recovery receipt for task and run guidance, including the Activity ledger. - Retire an obsolete exact-session notice through the existing bounded reconciler. Preserve the separate no-replay hold. - Write the shared native Stop acknowledgement only after the audited Stop intent and every exact remote lease receipt match. - Delegate saved external input to the live inbound owner. Recheck its source, actor, endpoint, principal and conversation generation. Promote the same receipt in the transaction that creates its new run. - Use that owner from the cleanup callback and existing stranded-queue catch-up after a lost callback or restart. A denied source cannot abort other items. - Reuse the current private task directory after a successful fresh retry. Re-read the company/task/workspace binding and validate the canonical stable or attempt namespace without recreating missing files; keep a later fresh retry separate. - Extend the existing agent-scoped qualification owner to native agents. The clean saved-agent Test qualifies its exact computer before runtime testing. Reuse a current proof; require a real probe and verified cleanup for a stale proof. Preserve draft tests and metadata-only external/pool previews. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and the recovery verification recipe. Add a production-page Storybook interaction for the normal native Test. ## Verification - Red: persisted recovery states returned stale instructions; an exact terminated native lease left shared Stop requested; the real GitHub subscribed-message fixture left zero successors after cleanup. The controlled baseline restored the previous production source, reproduced the failure, then restored the fixed bytes with matching SHA-256 hashes. - Green: 382 durable-chat, native-continuation, Stop and recovery tests pass. The real GitHub/PostgreSQL handoff matrix passes 12/12. It covers callback, application restart, callback/sweep race, valid input behind a deleted source, and denial for unknown stop, wrong allocation, paused endpoint, revoked principal, deleted or changed source, changed conversation generation and foreign scope. Repeated callbacks preserve one receipt, its actor, one successor and the unchanged stopped predecessor. - Workspace continuation red/green: the real PostgreSQL preparation flow created a fresh attempt and saved a marker, then rejected the next ordinary turn with the same binding mismatch observed in deployed use. The repaired preparation and filesystem suites pass 86/86: stable and attempt-root reuse, saved-marker preservation, a later clean sibling, changed current bindings, foreign company/task, closed workspace, traversal, missing path and symlink refusal. No task row reset or old-turn replay is used. - Qualification red/green: a native saved-agent qualification returned 422, and its normal Test skipped qualification. The repaired path passes 224 qualification/immutable-snapshot/environment tests and 176 UI/upgrade tests. It covers revoked authority, foreign or changed computer, current-proof reuse, failed/missing proof, draft settings, settings changed during the probe, and external/pool previews. On exact current source, the real local Harness / Runtime UI also qualified a newly saved disposable Computer with missing proof through actual Daytona, then completed the actual OpenCode/OpenRouter hello probe using `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017`. Supported availability changed from Legacy-only to Paperclip Runner after proof persistence. Qualification and runtime leases both completed normal release/cleanup. The five prior task run IDs were unchanged; no task wake was created. This is macOS source-server/UI with real Linux Daytona and provider services, not a hosted UI claim. Test probes are archived by the existing inspection contract; release does not claim physical deletion. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, token, map and diff checks pass at `f6450f4739fc8141815b8b7c35fde22a655c5f90`. The broad local `pnpm test:run` passed 24,899 tests and reported one existing nested-clone test timeout at 15 seconds. The complete failing file then passed 21/21 with the normal timeout; the exact case also passed on the pinned earlier baseline. The broad runner stopped before its later groups. No timeout or production workaround was added. Prior head `f6450f4` has 53 successful checks, two conditional Storybook skips and Greptile 5/5 with no inline threads. New workspace-reuse head `fcb13399ec70f92f71bd8250081251dca3f48962` passes workspace typecheck, full build, 86 scoped tests, maps and diff checks; Current-head CI has 53 successful checks and two conditional Storybook skips; Greptile is 5/5 with no inline findings. Deployed ordinary-turn reuse acceptance passed as described below. - Hosted Stop proof: the real GitHub issue-mention path used native OpenCode, `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017`, Daytona and an exact low-trust task boundary. Normal UI Stop interrupted an active Bash call. Native and shared acknowledgements matched the exact lease. Automatic recovery saved exactly `STARTED\n` (8 bytes), with no finish marker. Reload showed Stopped and saved work recovered. Only the original cancelled run remained. Normal five-minute cleanup completed its exact provider-destruction transition. - Limits: the provider buffered command output, so the marker was read after recovery. The approved local provider credential could not inspect the hosted sandbox; its 404 is not deletion proof. Cleanup success comes from the exact lease's platform destruction transition. An earlier hosted stale instruction disappeared after rollout with unchanged raw run/action data; that historical cause remains unexplained. Original incident holds and publication receipts were untouched. - Hosted handoff proof: after QA deployed the combined candidate containing `46b2e99`, startup admitted the previously saved GitHub author reply without another comment, Retry or manual action. The new native run used the exact original wake receipt and saved comment. It completed once, committed an external-response wait, preserved the stopped predecessor, emptied the queue and left the task In review. The answer appeared in the original GitHub conversation. Workspace finalization and the exact lease's normal destruction transition succeeded. - Hosted workspace proof: on the combined candidate containing `fcb13399`, normal Retry preserved the original authenticated GitHub request and completed a fresh native attempt. One later ordinary same-head author reply then completed in the exact same workspace ID and attempt directory, with no Retry/fresh directive. Its input tree digest matched the Retry's finalized digest; final copyback preserved that digest. The persisted assessment row and all five prior run records were unchanged, exactly one new reply run completed, and the task returned to In review with an empty queue and no live run. Both exact leases completed normal verified destruction. This used real native OpenCode, the exact DeepSeek/OpenRouter model and Daytona, without workspace-row repair or a new remote marker. - Publication limit: the workspace audit compares the persisted assessment and run history. The ordinary reply exposed a separate destination-summary fallback that changed the visible GitHub summary despite the preserved assessment row. The publication track is repairing that behavior; this proof does not claim the visible summary was preserved. - Deployment boundary: current-head CI/review and hosted same-source Retry/ordinary-workspace reuse acceptance passed. The separate visible-summary publication failure remains owned by the publication track. Combined hosted UI confirmation of the native-agent Test path is coordinated separately. Actual missing-proof UI/provider qualification has passed in the isolated local instance above; prior hosted Stop and same-input handoff proof remains separate. No merge or deployment is performed by this pull request. ## Risks Recovery state and termination receipts must match the exact source run and allocation. Missing or foreign proof keeps the hold. The chat owner must retain the original receipt and actor and recheck current authority. Cleanup cannot grant authority or replay the stopped turn. Existing native ownership, Stop, budget, permission and uncertain-effect guards remain in place. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, source editing and test execution. The context-window size is 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 #` / `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 (affected suites and isolated failing file pass; broad timeout retained 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 (current fcb has 53 successful checks/two conditional Storybook skips) - [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>	2026-10-26 22:21:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8373d78679	fix(recovery): register missing native preservation on Retry (#17800 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and their saved work. > - Native runs can leave a prepared remote workspace after a control deadline. > - The deadline repair in #17788 records preservation for future failures. > - Older failed runs can still have an active lease without a preservation owner. > - Retry correctly refuses another executor, but nothing can finish the missing preservation. > - This pull request registers the exact prepared source through the existing recovery services when the user retries. > - The bounded maintenance worker can then stop the provider and save its files before normal admission continues. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A historical failed native run has a prepared workspace and an active retained allocation. It has no workspace preservation record. Ordinary Retry cannot prove that the old executor stopped and has no maintenance owner to produce that proof. Expected behavior A deliberate Retry registers missing preservation for the exact unowned source. Existing recovery proves termination and saves the files. Existing admission then checks current user authority, effects, pause and budget gates before one successor can enter the queue. Steps to reproduce 1. Persist a failed native run with a prepared workspace, an active lease and a terminal, unowned finalization. 2. Omit the workspace preservation record, as an older deadline handler did. 3. Call the normal task Retry route. Before this fix, preservation remains absent and Retry cannot continue. Paperclip version or commit The regression fails on `46de15ff4b99bbee59c38f32f4f30b80ad5bbd24`, which already includes #17788. Related: Refs #17788 (future deadline failures), #17741 (committed recovery wakes), #17733 (connected Retry authority). #17773 adds source diagnostics and does not repair this missing registration. ## What Changed - Use native workspace preservation inside the existing issue-locked Retry transaction. A live finalization owner remains held. - Adopt a valid unowned preservation obligation through the existing bounded maintenance service. Bind it to the deliberate Retry intent without resetting an active generation. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for exact, mismatched and owned sources. Verify that registration cannot create a termination receipt or a successor. - Exercise the HTTP route, worker, real temporary file merge and queue admission with the stop reply held. Duplicate requests admit one queued turn after preservation. - Extend connected GitHub and Telegram Retry coverage for missing historical preservation. Document the contract and access boundaries. ## Verification - Red: the new historical-state regression fails on the base commit because `workspaceRestoreRecovery` remains absent. The mismatched and owned negative controls pass. - Green: the three focused historical-state cases pass with the fix against isolated local PostgreSQL 17. - The local HTTP journey restores saved files and retains newer host edits. It admits no successor while the provider stop reply is held. It admits one successor after verified preservation. The real GitHub and Telegram admission paths wait behind that recovery. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Green: 152 tests across four relevant suites, including all connected Retry safety cases. The six new cases pass again on final head `b8900801a3181fa673ea45f1129f968bbb08d1fd`. - Final-head GitHub checks: 55 successful, two intentionally skipped Storybook checks, and one neutral Paperclip bot review. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The Paperclip bot stopped before finishing and supplied no approval. - The full local command imported an earlier fixture revision before its assertions were corrected. It reported those two stale connected-fixture assertions and later hit the host PostgreSQL semaphore limit again. It was stopped after final-head CI completed. It is not counted as a full local pass; the complete CI test lanes passed on the final head. - The first local rerun hit the Mac PostgreSQL semaphore limit before assertions. Verification moved to an isolated disposable PostgreSQL container. Early assembled fixtures also exposed the existing destruction-cleanup gate; the retained-workspace fixture now uses its actual `keep_running` disposition. This fix does not weaken cleanup. ## Risks - Retry now registers maintenance for historical native failures. Exact descriptor, allocation and coordinator checks remain owned by the existing preservation service. Physical recovery still requires its existing exclusive owner and provider stop receipt. Registration alone grants no execution authority. - No database migration or provider protocol changes. No model, trust, assignment, retry-budget or external identity changes. - Local recovery uses real database, filesystem, HTTP, worker and admission code. Only the provider lifecycle boundary is simulated. No hosted allocation or live model turn has been verified for this new change. - The workspace recovery test file crosses 1,000 lines because this case shares its real database, filesystem and assembled route fixture. Keeping it there avoids duplicating that fixture or extracting unrelated production behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact model identifier 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-26 16:22:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	338bf75761	fix(chat): admit task Retry after GitHub reconnect (#17733 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their tasks. > - Task Retry must preserve saved input and enforce current access. > - A GitHub reconnect invalidates old runtime callbacks. > - Retry reused that old callback authority and rejected valid new intent. > - Retry also replayed an older failed request when a follow-up was already saved. > - This change admits a deliberate Retry under current authority and transfers saved input once. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16965, #17053 and #17317. These repairs preserve work and contain old executors. This change fixes the subsequent chat admission boundary. A search found no overlapping open reconnect/admission fix. What happened? Ordinary task Retry returned `chat_failed_run_retry_not_authorized` after the same GitHub App reconnected. The endpoint was healthy, but the saved request still carried its old runtime generation. A newer queued follow-up also made Retry reject the older failed request instead of continuing the follow-up. No successor was admitted. HTTP qualification found two related defects. Concurrent clicks could omit the canonical chat action from a response. Signed-in board dispatch also passed an incomplete task resource to the permission resolver, which rejected a permitted mutation. Expected behavior A deliberate Retry checks current authority for the same App, sender, repository, conversation and task. It continues saved input once. A later reconnect, changed App, revoked access or changed source prevents dispatch. Old runtime callbacks remain invalid. Steps to reproduce 1. Admit a GitHub request and record a failed native run. 2. Save a follow-up while execution is blocked. 3. Reconnect the same GitHub App. 4. Click ordinary task Retry. 5. Before this change, admission returns 409. Without reconnect, the newer input alone also causes 409. Paperclip version or commit Baseline source: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. Deployment mode Source checkout on macOS. Regressions use real PostgreSQL transactions and the assembled chat, HTTP route and heartbeat admission services. Provider boundaries are simulated. No hosted recovery is claimed. ## What Changed - Record the admitting App identity for new GitHub deliveries. Historical deliveries can use their original working-comment binding. Reauthorize deliberate Retry under a pinned current generation and credential-reference fingerprint. - Select the complete saved-input queue from the failed run's actual conversation before replaying the older failed batch. Keep exact-run Retry bounded while ordinary task Retry supports larger queues. Transfer its receipts with the dispatch transaction. Recover the same ownership after restart or a lost response. Release unadmitted input after a definitive rejection. - Preserve canonical chat action IDs across concurrent clicks. Supply current task status and assignment fields to board mutation checks. - Keep exact-run Retry, stale webhook, containment, source integrity, publication, pause and budget checks. Update recovery contracts and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: all three new PostgreSQL regressions failed on unchanged production code. Reconnect failed at chat authorization. Newer input failed at the obsolete-source guard. The combined case also failed. - Green: 61 selected chat integration cases passed. These include 27 new cases and 34 existing cases for containment, retained-source recovery, exact batches and source revocation. - A further red/green PostgreSQL regression reproduces the 51-message overflow identified during review. All 51 messages reach one successor, including a later Retry of that successor. A separate 52-message consumed-batch regression also passes. - A competing conversation retains its own deferred message. Distinct automatic policy contexts are checked independently; revoking only the later policy blocks the whole unadmitted batch. Batch validation still rejects a later message with a changed App binding or deleted source. A real PostgreSQL query capture reduced the 51-message preparation from 1,103 calls to fewer than 180. - All 16 durable task Retry tests passed. - The real HTTP route returns 202 and admits one queued successor for concurrent deliveries. Fault injection covers rollback during input handoff, response loss after dispatch commit, and permission loss when resuming an existing durable wait. A wait only adopts input after current admission succeeds; a one-shot settlement marker keeps status projection read-only. A new deliberate Retry works after another reconnect or a failed successor. - Current-App, repository, sender, source edit/delete, reassignment, endpoint pause and board-permission controls passed. Historical deliveries remain unchanged. - Final-head CI: 55 checks passed, three expected skips. The unchanged minute-bucket rate-limit assertion passed locally against PostgreSQL and on its one CI rerun. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Workspace typecheck and full build passed. Map alignment, module boundaries, UI token gates and `git diff --check` passed. - Hosted task recovery and a live provider turn remain unverified. The local tests hold agent capacity to inspect admission without starting a model or publishing a GitHub response. ## Risks - A deliberate GitHub Retry can admit old saved input under current connection authority. It requires the same App binding and current access. It pins that admission; it does not rewrite the historical delivery or make stale callbacks valid. - The durable chat queue has an optional admission callback. It transfers input only when the transaction contains a valid queued execution or saved wait. Other chat consumers have no callback and retain their behavior. - No migration, Cloud dependency, deployment, configuration change or workspace cleanup is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection, code execution and GitHub tools. The exact serving variant 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-26 10:26:45 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	7703220d38	perf(github): narrow response authority reads (#17686 ) Read current GitHub response identity and policy fields without transferring saved message bodies, instructions, or automatic policy wrappers. Preserve company predicates, shared locks, publication leases, malformed input handling, and stored content. Verify workspace typecheck, server build, 414 selected GitHub tests, three focused browser cases, all 55 checks, and Apex 5/5. Preserve the original browser cleanup deadlock failure; always restore experiment settings while reporting cancellation errors. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-25 20:52:09 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8415f4a679	fix(github): drain queued pings during active App setup (#17551 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip connects external work to an agent and its ordinary tasks. > - A dedicated GitHub App must prove signed webhook delivery during setup. > - Cloud queues the original bytes until the tenant can authenticate them. > - An older personal connection can leave a long empty-queue backoff in that tenant. > - Active App setup can then time out before the queued ping is read. > - This change lets active setup request the existing event drain with a short rate limit. > - The same webhook handler still owns signature verification and setup state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17457, #17513. What happened? Cloud accepted a new App's ping, but the tenant read it only after the setup wait timed out and cleanup archived the draft. An existing personal GitHub connection had left an empty-queue backoff. The poller checked that deadline before it read the new App state. Expected behavior An active manager setup request must be able to read the queued ping promptly. It must not bypass signature checks or create another App. Steps to reproduce 1. Let a personal GitHub connection build its empty-queue backoff. 2. Start a dedicated App and complete its installation. 3. Return to the waiting setup screen while the signed ping is queued. Paperclip version or commit This behavior is present on the base commit of this PR. ## What Changed - Let the authenticated wizard request a queue drain only while its Cloud App still lacks signed-delivery verification. Existing manager, credential, and installation checks run first. - Register a narrow callback to the server-owned GitHub poller. Keep provider handling in the GitHub services. Remove the callback on server close. - Share one in-flight attempt between setup and background requests. Limit setup attempts to one per five seconds, including after errors. - Retain the existing passive backoff, sealed queue, acknowledgement rules, and canonical webhook signature handler. - Add regressions for the old backoff, concurrent requests, failed requests, and wizard signature verification. Update the setup documentation and map. ## Verification - Observed the backoff regression fail against the old service: active setup made no additional Cloud lease request. It passes with this fix. - Three focused event-poller tests pass. They use the real admission/backoff code with stubbed SQL and Cloud boundaries. - All 39 startup tests pass. Server TypeScript, map checks, and diff checks pass. - The Postgres integration suites could not start locally because this host exhausted its semaphore limit. They remain required CI checks. This is not a passing local integration result. - Full current-head CI passes, including the Postgres and chat integration suites. Greptile scored this exact head 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - The additional Paperclip review check ended neutral because its execution did not complete. It did not publish a validated assessment. - A fresh deployed setup attempt remains required before live qualification. ## Risks A waiting setup screen now makes a bounded readiness request to Cloud. The existing connector request timeout still applies. Concurrent calls share the same drain, and failures release it for a later retry. The request stops after persisted verification or when the browser stops advancing setup. No timer, durable queue, fleet setting, or sleep blocker is added or removed. The existing background reconciliation path still has its existing sleep restrictions. Live setup-to-review behavior is not established by these local tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used for code execution and regression analysis. ## 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 <paperclip@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-24 21:58:43 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ae81c9fa7	fix(slack): support rich questions and complete review delivery (#17255 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Questions and review decisions must work in the conversation where a task started. > - Slack omitted question context and did not publish several review kinds. > - Some answers saved in Paperclip also lost their authorized continuation or their final Slack reply. > - A settled card and a successful run did not prove that the user received the result. > - This pull request preserves complete questions and follows the existing answer and delivery receipts through continuation. > - Users can read the request, submit an authorized decision, and receive the resumed task's result in the same conversation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17045 and #17218. What happened? Slack question cards could omit instructions and editable starting text. Checkbox reviews, item verdicts, task suggestions, and connection requests had no publication path. Complex question answers submitted in Paperclip could fail continuation authorization. Several review continuations completed without delivering their result to Slack. Expected behavior Show the actual question and context. Use native Slack controls when they preserve the form contract. Otherwise provide an explicit Paperclip review link. Persist one authorized response, resume through the existing delivery path, settle the card, and deliver the useful result to its originating conversation. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a task in Slack and ask a text or choice question with instructions and help text. 2. Submit native text and choice responses, then submit a complex form through Paperclip. 3. Accept a checklist, submit item decisions, select suggested tasks, or decline a connection request. 4. Inspect the saved answer, continuation run, original Slack card, and final Slack reply independently. ## What Changed - Preserve full prompts, context, descriptions, recommendations, help, and editable starting text. Use direct buttons for short choices, inline searchable selects for longer lists, and native checkboxes with explicit submission for multiple choices. - Add native custom-answer and validated-text modals, ordinary confirmation buttons, checklist decisions, per-item verdicts with reasons, suggested-task creation/dismissal, and connection decline. Keep governed approvals, permission grants, and forms that cannot be represented faithfully in the full Paperclip review surface. - Keep Slack-specific canonical-validation feedback in its owning platform module. Shared callbacks delegate without interpreting provider presentation. - Reuse the existing canonical interaction transactions, callback receipts, publication queue, and continuation delivery. Share ordinary confirmation handling across Telegram and Slack. Recheck current authorization and commit response receipts atomically. - Settle cards with the saved answer and remove stale controls. Ignore passive Slack link callbacks so opening a task does not display a false answer error. - Validate exact multi-select receipt mappings during native continuation. Recover automation-origin connection replies from their published prompt after validating the durable connection receipt. - Keep oversized multi-select handoffs free of unused native tokens, and retain the complete Paperclip form for 101–128 choices plus Other. Make the original-conversation audience explicit before submitting a Slack modal. - Add rollback, provider serialization, callback, continuation, and negative authorization regressions. Update the connector playbook and feature/access maps. No React or application UI changes are included. - Add a durable Q01–Q11 qualification index and provider coverage matrix. Require distinct functional, good-experience, and best-available-control assessments; real unanswered/answering/settled evidence; saved results, continuation and navigation proof; and retained failures. Mark other providers unaudited rather than assuming Slack parity. ## Verification Candidate: `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`. The eleven-core-format live Slack gallery is pinned to `c3d458b2a06b660448940fd8cf33c5906f0058d5`; subsequent boundary fixes and the sharing notice have automated verification, not new live screenshots. - Real Slack UI testing covered all 11 formats: text, closed choice, long single select, multiple choices, choices with a custom answer, pattern-validated text, confirmation, checklist, item verdicts, suggested tasks, and connection requests. Each has unanswered/answering/answered screenshots as applicable, an inspected saved result, one continuation, and an individual experience review in the local HTML gallery. - The dedicated private QA app/channel used signed callbacks to the local candidate. A separately approved password-protected, read-only preview proved connection-review, suggested-task review, and created-task navigation. Anonymous access, writes, and credential routes were denied. No OAuth grant was attempted. - Real testing exposed and repaired a multi-select continuation failure and a misleading error on link-button clicks. Failed attempts remain in the evidence. The final navigation replay opened the exact pending connection request and declined it in Slack without granting access. Suggested-task creation produced the selected child with the correct parent and description. - Final review-fix verification: 32 form tests, 28 provider/form-rendering tests, 30 publication tests, and 171 native continuation/authorization tests passed. Earlier 3 atomic-resolution rollback, 9 targeted callback/publication/Telegram, and 28 review-continuation cases passed. The final Slack/Teams modal subset also passed. The automation-origin connection cases, 101/128 custom-choice cases, and oversized multi-select continuation reproduced before their fixes and passed afterward; failing logs remain retained. These counts describe relevant runs, not a reliability percentage. - CI on `b5885b85fd` exposed a test fixture that assumed every Slack modal block was an input; the new sharing notice correctly renders a non-input block. The fixture now selects input blocks safely. The exact signed-modal correction/one-continuation test passed locally, together with 14 Slack form/modal tests. The failing CI log and its specific cause remain recorded. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Server typechecking was repeated after the final source changes. Map and module-boundary checks and `git diff --check` passed. - The full `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion on this host. Its 1,395-test chat suite found two stale native-control assertions; both were corrected and re-tested in a focused run. Focused database suites used separate disposable databases on existing local PostgreSQL. The full suite is not claimed green; new-head CI must complete before merge. - Final-head CI passed on `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`: all test/build jobs and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates are green ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40115430194)). Greptile and Ponytail both reviewed this exact head at 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - All three QA app callbacks were restored to staging. Both temporary tunnels and local proxies were closed. The local endpoint was archived and its local credential copies removed. The candidate app was stopped. Limits: provider execution used a deterministic Claude protocol fixture, not an LLM. This is local real-provider UX proof, not deployed staging or broader Codie/Claude qualification. The public preview intentionally blocked ancillary artifact routes, so its destination pages could show a partial-history warning. The complete permission-grant flow and every oversized/mixed-form branch were not driven manually. Earlier fixture, test, and provider failures remain recorded. ## Risks - New reply routes require durable origin proof. Incorrect receipt matching could lose a reply or route it incorrectly. Tests cover missing, forged, mismatched, and revoked authority. - Governed forms keep their Paperclip resolution checks. This change does not grant new approval authority to Slack. - Existing completed review results can become deliverable through the repaired publication path without another provider run. - No schema, lockfile, workflow, public task-status model, or runtime-instruction change is included. This branch is not deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code execution and tool use. The exact backend model ID 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 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 Paperclip ticket id - [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 on the new head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-24 10:29:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	9c442cf48e	feat(connections): deploy and configure Supabase and Vercel (#17217 ) Add governed Supabase and Vercel deployment/configuration connectors with vaulted credentials, agent access policies, approvals, audit, and bounded provider operations. Deliver reviewed REST actions to native agents and guard Vercel preview intent on empty projects. Preserve secret-safe request identity and durable retry behavior. Verified by current-head CI, fresh Greptile 5/5 review, and real-agent deployment/configuration walkthroughs on disposable provider resources. Test resources and temporary provider tokens were removed after verification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-23 11:37:29 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	3f1ad6b25b	fix(chat): resume task Retry after retained-source containment (#17317 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through task and execution ownership. > - A task Retry must retain the user's request while the system verifies an old executor. > - Connected conversations also retain their external principal and accepted source batch. > - Chat Retry admission required containment before it could save a wait for that recovery. > - A saved chat receipt could also remain deferred after containment became available. > - This pull request lets the exact recovery-bound request wait and resume through its chat owner. > - Normal admission still checks containment, current access and policy before one successor starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? An ordinary task Retry on a connected conversation failed with `failed_chat_retry_not_authorized` while its retained remote executor still needed verification. The new recovery generation existed, but the chat action failed before it could save a dispatch wait. This occurred after the repairs in #17267 were confirmed live. The local regression found a second gap. A processed chat action with a deferred wake was not reconsidered after containment. Re-entering normal admission also tried to insert its existing durable receipt again. A historical hold for the same failed run could also hide the current Retry's workspace strategy, so the request still waited after the old executor was contained. Preparation could then read that sibling instead of the recovery record that owned the fresh successor, losing the fresh-workspace decision. Expected behavior Save the exact authorized Retry while its matching recovery generation verifies the executor. Once containment is recorded, reconsider the same chat receipt through normal admission. Start one successor with the original source batch. Keep publication, principal, pause and budget checks. Steps to reproduce 1. Admit a GitHub or Telegram request and record a failed native run with a retained remote lease. 2. Leave the executor's termination unconfirmed and exhaust its prior recovery generation. 3. Use ordinary task Retry to create a new recovery generation. 4. Process the connected Retry. The old admission code fails instead of retaining a wait. 5. With a deferred receipt, record exact containment and reconcile again. The old dispatch path leaves it stranded. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced from `412914cfa78d5abefcc34d3eb8d4bb86e461caac`. The branch is rebased onto current master. Deployment mode Hosted tenant for the reported failure. Isolated local PostgreSQL and the assembled heartbeat/chat services for the regression. Refs #17267 and #16965. This change does not add a Cloud dependency or change the absence protocol. ## What Changed - Permit a saved admission wait only for the exact current task Retry and active source recovery generation. - Keep promotion and execution dependent on independent containment proof. - Bind a Retry to active automatic recovery without replacing its generation, attempt count or deadline. - Share the current exact Retry strategy across historical holds for the same run. Retain each hold's stop and effect checks. - Select the canonical recovery record that proves the committed fresh successor during workspace preparation. - Let task receipt reconciliation return the same deferred action to its chat owner. - Recheck current board and external authority, then update the existing wake atomically with its successor. - Preserve the exact chat source batch. Keep generic board-comment filtering unchanged. - Add GitHub and Telegram cases for waiting, containment, one successor, stale generations, source edits, endpoint pause and supersession. - Update recovery documentation and capability maps. ## Verification - Red: real PostgreSQL tests reproduced the admission rejection for GitHub and Telegram. Six active-recovery cases then failed on the generation-ID assumption. Two same-run historical-hold cases remained deferred after containment on the old strategy lookup. A preparation regression then returned no readiness when the historical hold was stored first. - Green: 73 selected chat integration tests and 394 continuation, task Retry, workspace recovery, recovery-state and workspace-preparation tests passed. The chat tests use the real chat admission and heartbeat queue. Unrelated capacity stays occupied so no real provider starts. They assert no executor before containment, one successor afterward, unchanged source leases while waiting, preserved recovery budgets, and denial after authority changes. A separate source hold still blocks work. Both sibling insertion orders pass through the committed-readiness lookup and real workspace preparation: the new directory has independent Git storage and files, and unpublished old work remains intact. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed after the review fixes. The source build passed on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`. - The local host reached its PostgreSQL semaphore limit. Successful runs used a test-only loader to reduce disposable cluster connection and worker limits. No repository database helper or application setting changed. - The full local `pnpm test:run` began before the final review edits, failed in its first server phase and was stopped after those failures. Later phases did not run. This is not a full local pass. The transient Retry-notice case passes after fixture isolation; the four Discord close-owned publication cases also pass in isolation. Other broad-run failure causes are not established. - Exact-head CI and security checks pass on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Optional Paperclip Review completed neutral with a 5/5 static assessment of all 11 changed files and no findings; it did not run tests or hosted acceptance. All 57 current-head checks are terminal: 54 success, two skipped and the optional neutral review, with no failures or pending checks. - The real hosted workflow confirmed that the deployed absence repair recorded containment. A later ordinary UI Retry was accepted and saved a durable request, but it remains behind the historical source hold. The useful existing review remains unchanged. This follow-up is not deployed; a live successful successor and final task disposition remain unverified. No missing files are claimed recovered. ## Risks - The existing task reconciliation sweep can restage a deferred chat action. This reuses its receipt and generation; it does not grant new execution or publication authority. - Dispatch must keep the board Retry identity separate from the connected request's principal. The regression checks these bindings and preserves current chat authorization at each phase. - Historical holds reuse a strategy only from the locked same-run recovery that names the current Retry intent. A different run, malformed recovery record or independent source hold remains fenced. - Unknown executors without a matching active recovery still fail admission. Promotion and execution require containment even when admission saved a wait. - No schema or API shape changes. No credential changes, manual deployment or service restart. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution and browser verification. The exact served model variant and context window 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-23 07:51:34 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	4c57da3708	fix(recovery): continue Retry after verified sandbox absence (#17267 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Task Retry must reconcile a stopped native execution before starting another one. > - A retained sandbox can disappear while workspace preservation is pending. > - A tenant-key error does not prove absence, especially after credential rotation. > - This pull request accepts only a short-lived Cloud observation bound to the exact source and current preservation owner. > - Normal Retry admission can then continue in a fresh workspace without claiming that missing files were recovered. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A native run stops with workspace preservation pending. Its Daytona allocation no longer exists. Recovery tries to reopen it, then cannot confirm a stop. The ordinary Retry remains deferred behind cleanup and repeats a transient failure. Expected behavior Cloud must independently confirm absence in the recorded provider organization. Core must verify that proof and settle executor containment under the current physical owner. Normal Retry admission must enforce all existing gates and create at most one successor. The old run must remain failed and missing files must remain unavailable. Steps to reproduce 1. Persist a failed native run with a retained Daytona lease and an exhausted workspace-recovery generation. 2. Remove the exact provider allocation so reopen and stop cannot confirm it. 3. Request ordinary task Retry. 4. Observe that recovery reports `provider_unavailable` and leaves the Retry deferred. Paperclip version/commit Reproduced on source based on `6d44b80a5edbcc9f69bfc3d520994e70aa9fab6d` with the prior preservation and Retry repairs present. Deployment mode Cloud tenant with native Runner and a retained Daytona source. The local acceptance uses real Core, Cloud, PostgreSQL, signatures, native Runner and UI, with deterministic model and provider HTTP boundaries. Refs #16962, #16965, #17053. These repairs cover completion proposals, durable Retry and retained-source reopening. They do not establish absence of a missing provider allocation. Related #16809 preserves orphan sandbox leases; this change requires independent proof before settling an absent allocation. ## What Changed - Add an HTTPS client for a purpose-separated, host-bound Cloud sandbox-absence capability. - Verify signature, audience, stack, expiry, source identities and current physical-owner token. - Settle only executor absence with a metadata and owner compare-and-set. Preserve source protection and record that workspace contents are unavailable. - Leave successor creation, approval, pause, budget and uncertain-effect checks to normal Retry admission. - Document the protocol and update the recovery maps. ## Verification - Red: the new persisted-state regression returned `provider_unavailable` and scheduled recovery on the unfixed code. Expected: `source_unavailable` with a contained old execution. - Green: 384 focused tests pass across workspace recovery, signed absence, explicit continuation, ordinary Retry, workspace preparation and provider-owned fresh workspaces. - Signature tests reject forged, expired and mismatched proofs. HTTP failures or missing configuration grant no authority. - Two missing allocations are both reconciled before Retry. A simulated interruption reuses the first durable absence receipt. - Concurrent Retry admission produces one queued fresh successor. It records no successful old result and no recovered-file claim. - Browser acceptance at this change: one ordinary Retry, two provider absence reads for two retained sources, one fresh native execution, useful confirmation and Done after reload. The old run remains failed. Existing saved review and newer local file bytes remain unchanged. The deterministic model does not perform external publication; this is local protocol acceptance, not live provider recovery. - `pnpm typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` pass. - A complete local `pnpm test:run` pass was not obtained. The first run hit a 15-second timeout in an unchanged status-card test. It was stopped to apply review fixes before the remaining phases ran. The unchanged status-card suite then passed 25/25 in isolation with the repository short temporary-path convention. - CI exposed a chat nonduplication assertion that compared unordered database rows. The assertion now sorts both complete row sets by run ID. Its focused test passes. - All 58 current-head checks are terminal on `1e2e881f6b6b1ae1fbfe1f2b2922657ce46e1470`: 55 success, two unaffected Storybook skips, and one neutral advisory review. Required CI, build, E2E and security checks pass. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The optional Paperclip review is neutral advisory 5/5 with nine-file source coverage and no findings; it did not independently run tests. - One unchanged native-runtime test timed out at five seconds on its first CI attempt. Its suite passed 33/33 in isolation; a single retry of that lane passed without code changes. ## Risks - The companion Cloud endpoint must ship before this consumer. Older or unavailable Cloud versions return no proof and retain the current hold. - A valid absence receipt permits a fresh workspace attempt. It cannot restore missing remote files, establish task success or authorize repeating an uncertain external effect. - This PR has not been deployed. The original task remains unrecovered pending rollout and reconciliation of its existing Retry. - No schema, credential, provider-resource or fleet changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection, code execution and browser tools. The exact backend variant and context-window size are not exposed by 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 #` / `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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused scope above; full local run limitation recorded) - [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>	2026-10-22 22:31:52 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	35bd7f6059	Reduce encrypted event retries and GitHub run-query transfer (#17251 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Cloud connector delivers encrypted GitHub events to an instance. > - One failed inner event currently rejects the whole authenticated batch. > - Healthy events then remain unacknowledged and are downloaded again. > - GitHub response and check reconciliation also reads full run records when it needs only ownership and status. > - This pull request isolates inner failures and narrows those run projections. > - Valid events can finish while failed events remain available for recovery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? An inner App event encrypted with an unavailable key causes `leaseEvents` to reject the complete batch. No sibling can finish or acknowledge. Repeated retries download the same encrypted payloads. Separately, GitHub response and check reads load prompts, runtime profiles, results, and log excerpts that their callers do not use. Expected behavior Authenticate the outer batch and lease before handling individual events. Process valid siblings independently. Retain failed events without acknowledging them. Read only the current run fields needed for response ownership and status checks. Steps to reproduce 1. Seal one event for an old instance key and another for the current key. 2. Put both events in a correctly authenticated outer lease. 3. Observe that the old client rejects the whole lease. 4. With this change, the valid event processes, the failed ID is reported locally, and only completed events acknowledge. No public issue exists. The change does not add a provider integration or duplicate a roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Keep outer authentication, environment checks, and lease binding strict. - Isolate inner decryption and route-binding failures. Return their authenticated IDs only to the local poller and count them as failures. - Leave failed events unacknowledged in the broker. Continue processing and acknowledging healthy and duplicate siblings. - Read only run identity, status, and required request context for GitHub responses. Read only run ID and status for check reconciliation. - Cover stale keys, swapped routes, invalid outer bindings, all-failed batches, large unused run payloads, and cross-company/task refusals. ## Verification - Connector cryptography suite: 47 tests passed. - Final connector suite: 50 tests passed, including cryptography and three real PostgreSQL connection-event tests. These cover acknowledgment isolation, all-failed batches, and the exact safe warning fields. - GitHub workflow regression suite after the master refresh: 307 tests passed, including the large-payload/company/task test (1,084 unrelated tests skipped by the selection). - Server typecheck passed after the final source changes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after the latest conflict-free master refresh. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped when the branch was refreshed; it has no complete passing result. All CI gates passed on the final commit, including general and serialized server suites, runner verification, build, typecheck, and end-to-end tests. Apex is 5/5 with all review comments resolved. The last change removes source comments and expands docs; both edited TypeScript files emit identical JavaScript before and after that change. - A read-only sample compared full run records with the new field sets: response data decreased by about 96%, and check data by over 99%. This is serialized query output, not a claim of realized billing savings or CPU reduction. - An initial database test setup failed because the local dependency install omitted native-library symlinks. The package's standard setup script repaired them. The unchanged test timeout then passed. - Added lines checked for credentials, customer data, private links, and internal issue references. ## Risks Failed inner events remain pending and retry under the broker's existing lease and retention policy. This change does not recover a lost original private key or introduce a dead-letter deletion path. Outer authentication failures still reject the complete batch. Run projections must retain request provenance and task binding fields. Existing predicates, ordering, identity validation, and publication authority remain unchanged. The change has no schema migration and adds no background timer or new provider call. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning and shell/GitHub CLI 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 - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the bug report template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket ID - [x] Focused local regressions and all CI gates pass - [x] I have added and updated tests - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have documented risks - [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>	2026-10-22 17:40:29 -07:00
Devin Foley devinfoley Claude Opus 5.5	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>	2026-10-20 22:47:24 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	c2daf906d9	fix: preserve task continuation and question delivery (#17045 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and delivers its results. > - One task can need several runs and a saved workspace. > - A run can succeed while the task waits for its next run. > - Chat fallback treated that success as completion and dropped useful status. > - Monitor runs also lost their conversation origin, and text-question cards lost their prompt. > - This change preserves the task outcome and exact delivery authority across those boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A Slack task requested a repository, yielded to a scheduled continuation, and showed only a generic completion message. The next run could not publish through the original conversation. A later text question showed its title and Respond button without the question context. Workspace recovery could commit the saved monitor result without restoring its explanation. Expected behavior The original conversation shows the accepted continuation explanation, receives the resumed result, and displays the full question when input is needed. A successful provider run does not claim that unfinished work is complete. Recovery delivers saved output once without another provider result. Steps to reproduce Start an authorized chat task, prepare a repository for a later admission, save a monitor wait, and let that monitor resume the task. Repeat with workspace finalization interrupted and with a free-text question. Inspect the originating conversation and the persisted output. Related merged work: #16806 and #16975. The open monitor and recovery changes found during duplicate search address different status and liveness policies. ## What Changed - Keep committed monitor summaries visible through the shared board and chat response resolver. Preserve interaction ownership and comment reuse. - Recover a saved monitor explanation after finalization, with no repeated provider result. - Prove monitor publication origin from the admitted wake and matching scheduling receipt. Match company, task, agent, requester, and schedule; reject ambiguous sources. - Include monitor continuations in the existing publication scan and use the canonical task binding. Keep current transport authorization. - Suppress completion fallback for yielded results. Explain missing final output without claiming completion. - Include question summaries, prompts, and help text in modal-backed cards. Keep answered text private. - Update execution semantics, capability maps, and the bounded reliability plan. ## Verification - Original source fails four composed PostgreSQL regressions: monitor origin, yielded completion, question body, and saved-summary recovery. The shared response resolver also fails before the repair. - Repaired focused cohort: 148 tests pass across publication, question privacy, scheduler, and native monitor suites. These use real disposable PostgreSQL; they do not qualify live Slack. - Full workspace typecheck and production build pass locally. Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - All CI gates pass at `1701c48f17`. Greptile reports 5/5. Both review findings are resolved. The local full-suite run remains separate. - The added 21-admission lineage and cycle regressions pass with the complete 11-test database suite. - The larger live Codex/Claude qualification and deployed staging acceptance remain in progress. This PR does not claim that milestone is complete. ## Risks - Incorrect lineage could disclose output to another conversation. The resolver requires one exact receipt-backed source and the worker still checks current delivery authority. - Status recovery could duplicate output or compete with a question. The source-run presentation marker, saved-comment reuse, interaction arbitration, and replay tests protect those boundaries. - No database migration or public task-status change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository editing, terminal tests, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose an exact deployment model ID or context-window size. ## 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>	2026-10-20 20:43:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. Expected behavior Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. Steps to reproduce 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is 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>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	a2d26a83fe	fix(inbox): keep automatic work out of Mine by default Keep channel and routine attribution out of Mine unless the person participates directly, is assigned the task, or receives a current addressed request. Apply the same source rules to unread state, archives, and task notifications. Preserve direct comments and current human action requests. Restore the two expressions damaged by redaction during the earlier master merge. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 13:46:10 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c96f76780	feat(connections): add model-backed prompt injection prevention Add opt-in OpenRouter checks at existing tool-result boundaries with regex fallback, service accounting, and settings on Connections. Make migration 0362 safe to replay over existing or partially applied schema state. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 11:32:25 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4b05795712	fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. What happened? Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. Expected behavior A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated agents were used. ## 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>	2026-10-20 10:39:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	813e808af4	Remove filesystem history authorization from workspace preparation (#16963 ) Remove physical-root source/reader authorization and sticky directory classifications from workspace preparation. Preserve current task/run authority, app-record privacy, credential authorization, containment, and lifecycle/publication integrity. Validate replacement selections against persisted new inputs and refresh verified checkout ownership so bounded reuse survives earlier workspace relocation. Add real PostgreSQL/Git regressions, a reproducible history-scaling benchmark, and documentation. Full CI passed all 48 jobs and Greptile scored 5/5 at `3d5da6c259`. Five preparation-guard medians improved from 20,512.99 ms to 52.22 ms on the 8,500-workspace fixture; these are not end-to-end startup timings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 09:19:59 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bc091f0a21	fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. What happened? A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. Expected behavior The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. Steps to reproduce 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## 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>	2026-10-19 21:51:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3b8324a233	fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. What happened? Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. Expected behavior One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. Steps to reproduce 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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>	2026-10-19 21:51:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e8a9f28d5	fix(github): recover long publications from durable receipts (#16883 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents publish GitHub reviews through governed tools. > - GitHub can accept a publication before the caller receives its result. > - Exact retries must return the existing publication receipt. > - The gateway compared a shortened audit hash with a complete request hash. > - Long reviews therefore failed the retry check even when their content was unchanged. > - This pull request checks the complete saved publication and returns its current receipt. > - Agents can confirm their work without another provider write. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16284, which added durable publication recovery. Refs #16275, which extended the GitHub tool deadline. What happened? An exact review retry returned an idempotency conflict after GitHub had published the review. The invocation hash uses an audit preview that shortens strings to 500 characters and arrays to 50 entries. The gateway compared that hash with the complete request hash. The earlier retry tests used short assessments. Expected behavior An unchanged request returns its durable receipt. Changed content, changed authority, or a missing publication must not cause another write. Steps to reproduce 1. Submit a review with a summary and rationale longer than 500 characters. 2. Let publication finish after a short caller deadline. 3. Repeat the exact request. Before this fix, the gateway returns an idempotency conflict. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master at `c5226daf7a37559ddc007446681717791d80a223`. ## What Changed - Use the durable publication's complete request check for GitHub retries. Keep run, agent, task, connection, tool, and current authority checks. - Return the saved receipt through normal gateway validation and bookkeeping. Leave pending provider work to the durable worker. - Refuse retries without a saved publication. Keep existing invocation keys and audit previews unchanged. - Cover long reviews, comments, progress updates, text suffix changes, nested coverage changes, pending receipts, missing publications, and revoked access. - Document the recovery contract and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: both long-review receipt cases failed on unchanged production code with the expected idempotency conflict. - Green: all 144 GitHub review workflow tests passed on the final source. This includes long reviews, comments, progress updates, pending and missing receipts, revoked policy, and the native assigned-tool entry point. - Server and workspace typechecks passed. The production build passed. - Map checks passed. These are structural checks. - The first broad run found an incorrect new fixture assumption: its discovery query returned two review tools. The fixture now selects the exact submission tool. An existing description-edit polling test also timed out; it passed separately without a production change, then passed in the complete 144-test rerun. Both earlier failures remain recorded. - Final commit `7cdcdc3a1ac79cb4ed77510a32d795228e3315e8` passed all 55 CI checks. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. [Complete CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39304187397). Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with zero unresolved review threads. - The earlier local full-suite attempt was stopped after the fixture correction. The final local full-suite attempt was stopped after complete final-head CI passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed; full-suite acceptance uses the current-head CI matrix. - Provider responses are controlled fixtures. Native assigned-tool coverage uses the production gateway and disposable PostgreSQL. No live GitHub fault injection, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks A pending receipt remains pending. It does not complete the task. Caller retries no longer dispatch provider work; the durable worker retains that responsibility. A missing durable publication returns a conflict because the gateway cannot establish the original write's outcome. Existing approval and revocation checks remain effective. No database migration or audit hash change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or context-window limit. ## 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 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>	2026-10-19 13:54:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2cbca4ceb0	fix: retain channel tools across task continuations (#16806 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels give an agent tools for its assigned task. > - Each later run must resolve the task and its accepted requester again. > - Some native runs store the task in a database column without the older JSON fields. > - Tool discovery read only the JSON fields. GitHub calls also required a new inbound comment. > - This pull request uses the durable task binding and accepted request history. > - Later runs retain their channel tools while current access checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A GitHub task can find `begin_review` on its first run, then receive an empty tool list on a later native run. If discovery is repaired alone, a call can still fail because the later run has no new inbound comment. Slack and voice tool access also read the older JSON task fields. Expected behavior A later run for the same task can find and call its assigned channel tools. The current requester, task, company, agent, endpoint, and access rules must still allow the call. Revoked access must fail. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a GitHub task and accept its linked requester. 2. Confirm that the runtime can find `begin_review`. 3. Start a later native run with `nativeIssueId`, accepted parent identity, and no JSON task ID or new wake comment. 4. Search for `begin_review` again. Before this change, the search returns an empty list. 5. Repair discovery alone and call `read_pull_request`. Before the request-history fix, the call fails with no active conversation capability. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced in source tests before this patch. The branch includes master at `fa50cab5685b9cdbb26ad9c610cc5b6c373d3ff4`. Additional context This is a core run-binding bug. The tests use PostgreSQL and synthetic provider responses. They do not send live reviews, Slack messages, or phone calls. ## What Changed - Resolve run task IDs from durable columns, with legacy JSON fields as a fallback. - Use the same binding in the gateway, access policy, identity service, and channel runtime preparation. - Recover accepted channel request history across later runs. Keep company, task, agent, and requester boundaries. - Recover older wake sources through verified parent runs, including after same-user board follow-ups. Clear the board message’s own legacy wake fallback. Keep cycle checks without a fixed limit on valid task history. - Retain the GitHub origin after a board comment from the same accepted user. Skip GitHub origin lookup results from other providers. - Keep ordinary board tools available when the requester changes. Accept legacy user comments without an author-type field. Still reject explicit malformed task IDs. - Prevent a later failure reply from replacing an earlier final GitHub answer. Recheck this rule under the publication lease. - Rotate the native tool contract to replace retained sessions with an older tool list. - Add continuation, publication, revocation, and boundary tests. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - Red: the later GitHub assigned-tool search returned an empty list before the binding fix. - Red: the later GitHub read failed with no active conversation capability before the request-history fix. - Green: runtime MCP discovery, GitHub read/begin/submit review, and response publication pass for monitor and same-user board continuations. - Green: Slack history, retained access controls, revocation, and voice gateway continuation pass. - Green: 35 channel, failure-publication, legacy-origin, long-history, and provenance tests pass. Both review findings had failing tests before their fixes. - Green: 107 gateway, operation-credential, identity, and provenance tests pass. These cover both first-run CI failures without changing their tests. - Green: 122 runtime, discovery-policy, and native-session tests pass; 2 unrelated tests are skipped. - Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - Updated to master in `cfcaba22628772d7fe1fb32b57ff7031c7072781`. The sole conflict was two tests added at the same location. Both the continuation test and the publication 403/401 test are retained. - Current local verification: all 179 gateway, credential, requester-identity, access-policy, runtime-context, and session-resume tests passed. Repository typecheck and build passed. Map and whitespace checks passed. - The new review regression first returned no source for a same-user board follow-up over legacy wake metadata. After the repair, all 27 provenance and channel cases passed. The combined GitHub discovery/read/begin/submit path and revoked access are covered. - The broader local channel run passed 176 cases and failed four timing/setup cases: a 15-second Slack authorization timeout, webhook-verification polling, a Slack acknowledgement deadline, and Discord setup polling. All four passed in isolation without source, assertion, or deadline changes. The earlier failure record is retained; the exact load/order cause is not established. Full CI must pass on the latest commit. - Current head: `7b9a08dcbc7b8140b589742f136944270b0496bb`. Repository typecheck and build pass on this commit. Greptile completed on this exact commit with 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. The final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39278921653) passed: 55 checks passed and 2 intentionally skipped, with no failures or pending checks. This includes the full sharded test matrix, browser tests, typecheck, build, and Runner verification. Results were delayed during the [GitHub Actions incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/8tzbpcnl75jp). An additional unsharded local full test run has not completed; the completed full-suite evidence is CI. - Earlier verification: the first PR commit failed two server suites. Those failures were fixed and verified before this update. The original 4 GiB sandbox could not complete full local typechecking or tests; the current checkout completed typechecking and build. The full test suite runs through the CI shards. No full local test-suite pass or live provider delivery is claimed. ## Risks - Request history can restore the wrong authority if its scope is too broad. The resolver checks each accepted parent against the task, company, agent, and requester. Tests cover invalid and cyclic history. - The native contract change starts a new provider session for older contracts. - No database migration or public API schema changes are required. Each tool call still checks live access. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code edits, and local test 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>	2026-10-19 11:20:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a7504784e5	perf(chat): avoid snapshot reads in native progress polls (#16845 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat connectors publish safe progress from native runs. > - A recurring query joins each run to its conversation through JSON context. > - Large snapshots make repeated JSON reads expensive. > - Issue-scoped runs already have a typed issue binding. > - This pull request uses that binding and retains the legacy JSON fallback. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The native chat-progress candidate query in `enqueueSafeNativeChatProgress`. Subsystem affected `server/` database queries and chat publication. Current behavior The conversation join extracts `issueId` from each run's JSON snapshot. A local plan probes the run repeatedly and reads a large snapshot for each probe. Proposed behavior Use the run's typed `issue_id` when present. Read the JSON key when that column is null. Keep the existing company, endpoint, event, publication, cursor, and cadence conditions. Reason and benefit Avoid repeated snapshot reads for scoped runs. Related: #15802 changed delivery queue scheduling; it left native progress projection on its existing cadence. ## What Changed - Change only the native-progress conversation join. Leave the separate milestone query, which already uses its expression index, unchanged. - Add a disposable PostgreSQL benchmark that captures the real service SQL and compares complete rows on one shared fixture. It includes a legacy null binding, unrelated tenants, 2,400 historical decoys, and 144 KiB of random bytes per snapshot (about 192 KiB after base64 encoding). - Compare cardinality across independent fixtures. Their generated conversation and event IDs are not deterministic. - Add PostgreSQL regressions for a typed issue binding without the JSON key and for the legacy NULL-column fallback. ## Verification - Full-size paired local measurement: native baseline 57.67 ms median, treatment 19.35 ms median, 2.98× faster. Both return the same 41 complete rows. Five timed samples follow warmups, with baseline and treatment alternated. The unchanged milestone query is a control. - An independent full-size run also passed complete row equality and measured 65.22 → 24.08 ms (2.71×). - The small 1 KiB control passed the same 41-row equality check and was neutral: 15.20 → 15.45 ms median. The improvement targets large snapshots, not small payloads. A repeat of the final JavaScript entry point also passed equality and measured 2.97× while the full test suite was running; its wider timing spread is not the primary performance result. - Four PostgreSQL cases pass: typed issue scope without a legacy JSON key, NULL-column JSON fallback, native-progress cadence, and paused-endpoint no-replay behavior. The remaining tests in that file were excluded by the name filter. - Reproduce with `node --import ./cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs scripts/benchmark-chat-native-progress.mjs --phase=baseline` before applying the query change. Run the same command with `--phase=treatment` after applying it. The tool stores SQL, parameters, plans, all samples, and equality evidence under `.scratch/`. - Full workspace typecheck and final server typecheck passed locally. Four focused PostgreSQL cases passed. The duplicate unsharded local full-suite run was stopped after the same commit passed all CI test shards; the full local tests/build sequence was not completed. CI Build and the aggregate verification gate passed on that commit. - Current-head CI is green at `82c9ef9` (55 successful checks, two valid skips). An unchanged runtime-supervision test failed in the first attempt; its isolated local reproduction passed, and one failed-job rerun passed on the same commit. The local reproduction runs on macOS and does not exercise the Linux process-identity branch. - Greptile reviewed `82c9ef9` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - The typed issue binding takes precedence when present; older rows retain JSON fallback. Company and publication ownership checks remain in the query. - Measurements use local embedded PostgreSQL 18 with synthetic data. The hosted motivation used PostgreSQL 17. Absolute timings and plans can differ on other compute and data distributions. - The milestone benchmark returns an empty candidate set and is a performance control; the nonempty native comparison is the correctness and performance target. - No schema migration or provider network request is added. This PR does not deploy a query change to a live database. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed. Z-AI GLM 5.3 Prime through OpenRouter (`openrouter/z-ai/glm-5.3-prime`) assisted the initial query treatment and benchmark. Codex repaired the comparison, narrowed the production change, and ran the full-size proof. ## 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 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>	2026-10-19 10:20:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9966f31bee	fix(chat): keep permission failures scoped to the rejected operation (#16847 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External channels deliver agent replies through a durable publication queue. > - A provider can reject one operation while other operations remain allowed. > - The shared error classifier treated generic 403 and permission errors as failures of the whole connection. > - Failure handlers then changed the user's enabled setting and removed all assigned channel tools. > - This pull request limits permission failures to the rejected operation and preserves connection intent during authentication failures. > - Unrelated work can continue, while confirmed authentication failures still stop endpoint traffic. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16137. Follows #16138, which distinguishes local authorization errors from provider errors. This change also narrows provider permission failures. Related #16806 handles a separate task-continuation tool-binding defect. A provider 403 or missing-scope response currently disables a connection that may still support other operations. The expected behavior is a visible operation failure with unrelated work preserved. Confirmed authentication failures must stop sends without changing the user's enabled setting. ## What Changed - Classify generic 403, adapter permission errors, and Slack missing-scope/no-permission responses as failed operations. - Preserve rate-limit retries, known destination quarantine, and confirmed authentication failures. - Preserve connection status and enabled intent when publication, provider-reply, or form-open authentication fails. The endpoint still enters attention and its runtime stops. - Add GitHub regressions for retained discovery and successful later publication after 403, and no further sends after 401. - Mark authentication health failed and fence persistent receiver startup, background reconciliation, and receiver callbacks. Keep signed GitHub lifecycle events available during an authentication stop. Verify Discord reconciliation and Photon restart preserve the stop, while transient Discord disconnects still recover. - Update provider, publication, and modal regression expectations and the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Red: five new classifier cases returned endpoint attention before the repair. The signed-installation-removal regression also reproduced a blocked lifecycle event after a 401 before narrowing the receiver guard. - Green: all 35 classifier tests pass. - Green: 19 PostgreSQL-backed cases pass through the production channel services, including GitHub discovery/publication, Slack provider replies and question modals, Telegram credential/destination failures, rate limiting, and Discord/Photon authentication-stop persistence. - Map structural checks and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. All CI gates are green on `7e379bcd98aa8363e42efe7f8a4b2589b7111ae6`; Greptile is 5/5 on that exact commit with no unresolved findings. - The monolithic local `pnpm test:run` was started, then stopped after its revision passed the full CI matrix and was superseded by the authentication-stop repair. Final full-suite verification passed in CI shards; all 19 final local provider regressions pass. - The tests run from this source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL and controlled provider failures. They do not prove live GitHub recovery or deployment. No live connection settings were changed. ## Risks - Permission failures now leave unrelated work available. The rejected operation remains failed and is not automatically replayed. Provider authorization still applies to every request. - Keeping a connection enabled must not bypass an authentication stop. GitHub verifies blocked tool discovery and later sends; Discord and Photon verify background reconciliation and restart cannot clear the stop. Failed connection health is an execution gate while the endpoint requires attention. - Explicit disable, disconnect, signed installation revocation, and existing destination-specific denial handling remain unchanged. No migration or API schema change is required. - Previously disabled connections are not automatically re-enabled because an upgrade cannot safely infer the user's intent. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, shell tools, repository edits, and test 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>	2026-10-19 09:54:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	becdc3b08e	perf(slack): remove delays before mention acknowledgements (#16491 ) Slack mentions now start eyes reactions after the authorized task/comment commits, independently of attachments, subscription and scheduler acceptance. Omit unused optional URL-preview polling while retaining message text, links and files. Keep receipt failures and missing-file warnings independent, including terminal cleanup of older multi-line diagnostics. Verified with full current-head CI and E2E, Superagent and legacy security checks, Apex 5/5 with no unresolved findings, 19 selected real-PostgreSQL receipt/authorization/cleanup cases, and full frozen-source typecheck/build. The first CI attempt's unchanged Cursor probe timeout is retained in the PR; the one failed-only retry passed under unchanged deadlines. Live Slack latency still requires deployed acceptance. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 17:36:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5ec93dae01	fix(connectors): avoid redundant run preparation discovery (#16461 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Run preparation selects connector skills and tools under current permissions. > - An assignment check can build an unrelated company tool catalog and wait for a shared discovery slot. > - Native startup repeats assignment discovery to obtain static tool definitions. > - Slack also locks and reconciles an unchanged catalog, then repeats task authorization. > - This pull request removes that redundant startup work and preserves live checks at tool execution. > - The benefit is less preparation work, less contention, and unchanged permission and approval enforcement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16454 (detailed preparation tracing), #16425 (workspace preparation performance). What happened? Connector configuration added avoidable work to run preparation. Browser Use assignment authorized the whole company catalog, including other connector families. Four connector resolvers ran in series. Native controller startup repeated all assignment resolution when any connector skill was pinned. Slack reconciled an unchanged catalog under an advisory lock and checked task authority twice. Expected behavior Prepare only the connector data needed by the run. Reuse static tool definitions from pinned skills. Preserve current company, assignment, identity, profile, policy, grant, and approval checks when an operation executes. Steps to reproduce 1. Configure Browser Use and an unrelated MCP catalog with 500 tools for one company. 2. Resolve Browser Use resources for an authorized task. The old path reads and authorizes the unrelated catalog. 3. Occupy both full discovery slots. The old assignment check waits for those slots. 4. Resolve a linked Slack task repeatedly with an existing current catalog. The old path still acquires a catalog lock and repeats authority checks. Paperclip version or commit Base: `68a09dcb5f50e3fb6ceaaeac2706d96db97fc9b3`. Deployment mode Observed in hosted native runs. The local reproduction uses a source checkout and real embedded PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Restrict Browser Use catalog reads and policy decisions to active Browser Use connections. Preserve guest restrictions, reviewed catalog filters, live grants, and deterministic resource order. Keep assignment checks out of the full discovery queue. - Resolve the four independent connector families concurrently. Wait for outstanding work to settle before propagating a failure, and retain registration order. - Register native direct connector tool definitions from pinned connector skills. Keep live assignment resolution and governed execution on every tool call. - Compare Slack catalog hashes before reconciliation. Current catalogs skip the catalog transaction and lock. Check task authority once after current profile checks. Initial setup and upgrades retain locked reconciliation and checks before and after it. - Precompute immutable bundled Slack descriptor hashes. Preserve disabled entries, profile state, removed bindings, and review metadata. - Document the startup paths and add focused contention, revocation, catalog upgrade, and failure-settlement regressions. - Repair a pre-existing CI guard false positive: the filename `docker-compose-secrets.test.mjs` matched `secrets.`. Check GitHub secret expressions instead, with dot, bracket, and whole-context controls. No workflow changes. ## Verification - Conflict resolution: merge `b1566ca494f4af6e8d4418fa37393c5caee02582` from master into head `55140b1609ae7bd21a038eb75a48c2683299e4b4`. Combine both secret-expression guards and regression cases. Preserve current workspace, native recovery, and Daytona changes. All 467 policy tests, 787 focused native/connector/Browser Use tests, and server typecheck passed locally after integration. Fresh full CI passed all 55 checks on this head, with two optional Storybook jobs skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Focused native startup, connector concurrency, and AgentMail suites — 763 tests passed. - Complete Browser Use suite — 33 tests passed. Focused Slack catalog, linked task, retained provenance/revocation, and pinned native tool tests passed. The complete runner tool authority suite passed (26 tests). The 1,337-case chat suite passed 1,335 tests and had two failures: the original new transaction-count assertion and a 15-second timeout in the publication-batch case. Both cases passed an isolated rerun. The publication timeout occurred during concurrent local checks; the passing rerun does not erase it. CI must still pass the chat shards. - The first focused run found two incorrect new assertions: policy evaluation performs a second catalog lookup, and an explicit allow policy overrides a profile default. The tests now distinguish the scoped catalog query and revoke the governing policy. The focused Browser Use rerun passed all 33 cases after these assertion fixes. - Full-suite test verification used the CI shards of `pnpm test:run`. Local runs focused on the changed boundaries; the complete repository test command was not duplicated locally. - `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` — all 467 policy tests passed. The CI failure reproduced on the unchanged base guard before this correction. Actual GitHub secret expressions still match the guard. - CI on the final head passed all chat shards, typecheck, build, Runner checks, browser shards, and other test lanes. One existing workspace-runtime case hit `EADDRINUSE` for a randomly selected test listener in server shard 1/12 (1,162 tests passed in that shard). The shard passed its single retry on the same SHA with no source changes. The first failure remains recorded here. Previous reviewed head `7191ac40691ddb1ef38b86665c95cc14c57ea390`: all 55 checks passed, two optional Storybook jobs skipped, and no pending or failed checks. Greptile is 5/5 on this head with no unresolved review threads. The external security scan passed. Local before/after measurements use the old and new implementations against the same fixture. Both paths are warmed. Seven samples alternate execution order. The database is real embedded PostgreSQL. No latency is injected. These measurements do not establish hosted speed. \| Local path \| Before median (range) \| After median (range) \| Work reduction \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| Browser Use assignment with 500 unrelated MCP tools \| 44.020 ms (33.994–107.328) \| 26.502 ms (20.385–99.037) \| 26 → 22 statements; unrelated catalog and discovery queue removed \| \| Slack assignment with current catalog and linked responsible user \| 49.723 ms (43.624–80.653) \| 22.141 ms (19.781–30.818) \| 5 → 2 database transactions; no catalog lock on the current path \| The contention regression fails against the old implementation after a bounded five-second wait, then passes against the optimized implementation. It occupies the real global discovery scheduler and verifies that Browser Use assignment completes without releasing those slots. It records catalog SQL to verify connection scope. Revocation cases remove policy, catalog availability, and grants between calls. Existing Slack integration cases exercise retained provenance, removed profile bindings, identity revocation, approved writes, and current responsible-user restrictions. ## Risks - Pinned native tool definitions can remain visible after access is revoked. They confer no authority. Invocation rechecks current assignments and fails closed before an operation executes. Newly available connector families still require a newly admitted skill selection. - Concurrent resolution can increase instantaneous database reads to four connector families per configuration call. It is a fixed bound. Outstanding work settles before a failed preparation returns. - Slack skips reconciliation only when all bundled version hashes and an existing profile match. Missing or changed definitions still use the existing locked path. Operator revocations remain effective. - This PR addresses connector preparation. Workspace transfer, provider startup, copyback, and queue delay can still keep total latency above the user's goal. Hosted improvement needs a deployed before/after trace. - No schema, lockfile, workflow, telemetry event, or authorization cache changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and GitHub tools. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. ## 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>	2026-10-15 14:08:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3ea39f75c1	test: consolidate duplicate owner proofs (#16075 ) Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 23:17:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f69c6a8a35	fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results. > - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed tools. > - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent is durable. > - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before recovery. > - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline. > - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an independent durable worker. > - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or duplicate publication. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change repairs retry and recovery behavior. What happened? A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty cached result instead of the saved publication receipt. Expected behavior Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate comments, findings, or checks. Steps to reproduce 1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment. 2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let GitHub succeed. 3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway. 4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check. 5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the exact call after publication finishes. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`. ## What Changed - Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent permission and validation errors. - Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and provider receipt checks. - Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines on explicit retries. - Register an independent GitHub publication worker with transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease deadlines. - Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run, connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation. - Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a failed publication receipt. - Green: the same tests passed after the change. - GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18. The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before the two approval regressions were added. - Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed. - Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap, exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval request preserved. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs passed at `a6d81b67cb`, including the required verify and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 at the same head, with the approval-recovery finding resolved. The external Superagent Security Scan also passed. - Live acceptance passed on a dedicated single-repository local test App and native Paperclip Runner. A test-only preload returned one HTTP 503 before the final summary PATCH. One submit_review call completed in 17.305 seconds; the bot published its 3/5 advisory review and neutral check, then automatically finished the task. [Published review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/pull/9#issuecomment-6168809007), [neutral check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/runs/115863564014). This live test ran at de6862072c; approval-specific recovery is covered by the later regressions. The preload is excluded from the repository and removed from the running local instance. ## Risks Retries make additional bounded provider requests. A provider write with a lost response is recovered through its existing App-owned identity before another write is permitted. The worker rechecks authority and the PR head; revocation and superseded work stop publication. Calls can still exceed their deadline, and repeated failures eventually exhaust the retry cap. A pending publication is not a completed task. The agent still owns task completion after receiving a confirmed receipt. No schema migration is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family), with code inspection, editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-14 08:40:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1e731520bb	fix(mcp): deduplicate discovered tool descriptors (#16281 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents receive governed app tools through the MCP gateway. > - GitHub review tasks can contain a PR discussion and inline finding threads. > - Discovery repeated each tool for every conversation linked to the task. > - Native tool registration treated these repeated descriptors as a fatal collision. > - This pull request lists GitHub tools once and deduplicates identical descriptors across providers. > - Agents can continue work while conflicting definitions and normal tool permissions remain enforced. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A follow-up run on a GitHub review task failed with `assigned_mcp_tool_name_collision` before the provider started. The task had a main conversation and an inline finding thread. Discovery returned the same seven tools twice. Repeated descriptors from other providers could cause the same failure. Expected behavior Discovery exposes each identical tool once. Separate connection names remain separate tools. Conflicting definitions remain an error. Every call still passes the gateway's policy, approval, revocation, and audit checks. Steps to reproduce 1. Run a GitHub review and publish an inline finding. 2. Send a follow-up request on the same PR task. 3. Inspect the task-bound bot catalog and the next native startup. 4. Separately, return two identical descriptors from an assigned app or plugin catalog. Related: #13717 added the GitHub review workflow. ## What Changed - Use a distinct GitHub discovery query across conversations that share an endpoint and task. Keep both thread mappings. - Deduplicate identical gateway descriptors by their full gateway name across providers. Use this rule for MCP listings, plugin listings, assigned-tool startup, and fresh assigned-tool discovery. - Reject conflicting descriptors with `tool_name_collision`. Keep the projected-name collision guard. - Cover GitHub inline-thread discovery, repeated plugin/app tools, direct and on-demand catalogs, revocation, conflicting bindings, and separate connection names. - Update the execution contract, GitHub documentation, and agent access map. ## Verification - Regression baseline: six new assertions failed on the original implementation. GitHub returned fourteen entries, plugin discovery repeated a tool, and native startup failed on repeated app tools. - Focused verification passed: 272 GitHub cases, all 29 assigned-tool cases, and all 88 gateway acceptance cases. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Current-head CI passed: 55 checks passed, two inapplicable checks skipped. Greptile scored the current head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Full local `pnpm test:run` encountered a 15-second timeout in the existing bearer-auth throttling test, before tool discovery. That test passed in the separate 88-case gateway run and on one isolated rerun. The duplicate broad local run was then stopped; the complete current-head CI matrix passed. ## Risks - Deduplication keeps the first identical descriptor and preserves listing order. Same-name descriptors with different definitions fail with HTTP 409 rather than selecting an ambiguous binding. - The GitHub query changes result cardinality. It retains the existing task/company/agent filters and leaves conversation rows intact. - No schema migration or credential change. Live staging recovery requires deployment and a new authorized run. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code inspection, editing, browser investigation, and test execution. The exact serving model ID and context window 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-14 07:39:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e9b6c4d44c	perf: remove history scans from task and chat queries (#16278 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task reads and external chat notices must remain responsive as run history grows. > - The chat notice sweep casts indexed UUID columns to text. > - Run redaction and task provenance filter large JSON contexts with expressions that lack matching indexes. > - These queries scan history and read large stored contexts on common requests. > - This pull request adapts two existing fixes to current master and adds the missing provenance index. > - The benefit is less database work with the same query results and access rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15927. This change adapts that chat sweep fix to the extracted inbound notice module and retains the contributor credit. Refs #12499. This change adds that missing nested-context index through a current, concurrent migration. It retains the contributor credit. This combined change replaces those older layouts for the measured query paths. It also covers task creation provenance, which those pull requests do not address. What happened? The chat notice sweep scans wakeup history. Issue redaction scans run contexts because only one branch of its JSON condition has an index. The task creation-source filter also scans contexts because its native and legacy ID expression lacks an index. Expected behavior The queries use indexed lookups and return the same rows. Company access, task origin precedence, secret redaction, and chat notice ordering remain the same. Steps to reproduce Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-slow-queries.ts --baseline-ref=f8af817f8d`. The benchmark creates disposable PostgreSQL data and compares the old query with the current query on the same fixture. ## What Changed - Compare chat UUID columns directly with safely parsed payload IDs. Reject malformed and noncanonical IDs without a cast failure. - Add the nested `paperclipIssue.id` run-context index and the exact native/legacy task-provenance expression index. - Build both indexes concurrently. Register the migration for top-level execution and invalid-index retry repair. - Extend chat payload and migration regression coverage. - Add a repeatable synthetic SQL benchmark and document its scope and command. - Keep the five newest schema snapshots. ## Verification - Focused local checks: 76 selected tests passed in five files. These cover FIFO notices, malformed IDs, conversation state, redaction, provenance, and company boundaries. - Disposable PostgreSQL 18.1 fixture: 335 tasks, 1,400 runs, 13,000 wakeups, 377 actions, and 192 KiB synthetic contexts. - Five warm samples per query, after two warmups. Every returned SQL column matched before and after, compared as positional tuples so duplicate unnamed projections are retained. \| Query \| Before, median \| After, median \| Improvement \| \| --- \| ---: \| ---: \| ---: \| \| Chat notice candidates \| 26.21 ms \| 6.43 ms \| 4.1× \| \| Task creation-source list \| 159.69 ms \| 6.51 ms \| 24.5× \| \| Issue redaction contexts \| 131.88 ms \| 0.34 ms \| 389.1× \| The run-history context projection returned the same 200 rows and kept the same index plan and buffer counts. Its timings were noisy (37.30 ms before and 56.78 ms after in the last run; 34.25 ms and 34.14 ms in the previous run). No improvement is claimed for this control. Its repeated JSON projection remains a separate optimization opportunity. The populated plans use the wakeup primary key, the provenance expression index, and a BitmapOr over both redaction indexes. These are local SQL measurements. They do not prove an equivalent change in hosted API latency. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was started and then interrupted (exit 130) when the Mac reached its PostgreSQL shared-memory limit. It did not complete and is not reported as passed. The final SQL benchmark passed after its disposable database resources were released. The full general and serialized test suites passed in CI. - All CI checks for final head `193acca6abaa992acad12f4b631bd31dd3234641` passed, including full Vitest coverage, E2E checks, typecheck, build, migration order, and lifecycle boundaries. - Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5 with no actionable comments. ## Risks - Both indexes add storage and write cost. Initial builds read stored run contexts and can take time on large histories. - Concurrent index builds avoid holding a write-blocking table lock for the whole build. The existing migration retry path removes invalid partial indexes before retrying. - The chat parser accepts only canonical lowercase UUID text. This preserves the prior text comparison, including rejection of uppercase and malformed values. - Staging has not been migrated or deployed. Local PostgreSQL and synthetic data do not reproduce hosted load or network latency. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, browser inspection, and local code execution. The adapted fixes retain their original contributor credits. ## 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>	2026-10-14 07:37:51 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6cb6ac3b8e	fix(github): allow review publication to finish before tool timeout (#16275 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results. > - GitHub review bots publish task-scoped assessments through the tool gateway. > - A submission saves its assessment and publication intent before it waits for GitHub. > - The gateway's ten-second default can expire while those provider requests continue. > - GitHub can then show a completed review while the agent receives a timeout and blocks its task. > - This pull request gives GitHub bot tools the existing sixty-second maximum by default. > - The caller can receive the confirmed publication result without manual task repair for ordinary slower responses. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A GitHub bot's `submit_review` call returned `504 tool_timeout`. Its saved assessment continued to publish a summary and completed check after the caller stopped waiting. The agent treated publication as unconfirmed and blocked the task. Expected behavior A valid GitHub response that takes longer than ten seconds should return its confirmed publication receipt within the gateway's supported deadline. Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a report-only GitHub review bot and admit a PR review request. 2. Delay the summary-comment PATCH response by eleven seconds. 3. Submit a complete assessment through a real run-scoped tool gateway. 4. Before this fix, the caller gets a timeout while the durable action publishes one summary and a neutral check. 5. With this fix, the caller gets `completed`, `processed`, and the assessment score. Retrying does not add another comment. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced from master at `2c17d3ca52a7840f280f1dd87975a2ad77de3b35`. Related changes: Refs #16259 and #16263. Those changes repaired connection recovery. This change addresses the subsequent submission deadline. ## What Changed - Use a sixty-second default for `paperclip_github_chat` tools in run execution and board tool tests. - Preserve explicit shorter deadlines and the existing maximum. - Add PostgreSQL-backed regressions through the real gateway for delayed publication, explicit deadlines, neutral checks, and duplicate prevention. - Document the deadline and the durable publication behavior. ## Verification - Red: the eleven-second publication regression failed with `ToolGatewayHttpError(504, tool_timeout)` after the summary and neutral check were published. - Green: the same regression passed after the repair. - GitHub review workflow suite: 122 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: running; results will be recorded before handoff. - Live local verification is running against a dedicated test App on [the disposable test PR](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/pull/9). A test-only preload delays one real GitHub PATCH response by eleven seconds. It is not part of this change. ## Risks GitHub bot calls can occupy their execution slot for up to sixty seconds by default. Calls that exceed that limit can still time out. Durable publication may continue after any caller timeout, so a timeout alone is not proof of a failed write. This change does not add automatic task reconciliation for arbitrarily slow or unavailable providers. No schema or credential changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 #` / `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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 06:52:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c17d3ca52	fix(github): recover webhook verification in attention state (#16263 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots require signed webhook delivery before activation. > - Cloud can deduplicate an old ping after a connection repair. > - A fresh event could verify active connections, but an attention-state connection discarded it before authentication. > - This pull request allows signed delivery verification while the connection needs attention. > - It discards ordinary work until the manager completes the existing reconnect and activation checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16259. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization failures. What happened? Live verification of #16259 found that a GitHub App already marked as needing attention remained stuck waiting for a signed ping. The Cloud relay had already delivered that ping. New signed events were discarded by the attention-state ingress gate before they could verify delivery. Expected behavior A fresh valid event from the bound installation verifies delivery. It does not activate the connection, change repository access, or start work. The manager can then complete the normal reconnect flow. Steps to reproduce 1. Put an existing App connection into attention state with webhook verification cleared after repair. 2. Deliver a fresh signed comment event for its bound installation. 3. Continue setup. Before this fix, webhook verification remains missing and reconnect cannot proceed. ## What Changed - Use a content-free verification path for signed ordinary GitHub events while the connection needs attention. - Allow a fresh signed event from the same installation to verify webhook delivery. - Verify delivery even from disabled or unavailable repositories. Discard the event before content storage, resource reconciliation, or runtime creation. - Keep newly verified connections in the provider-setup step. Later installation events cannot activate them before reconnect. Preserve normal installation recovery for existing qualified connections. - Extend recovery regressions to cover attention state, foreign installations, invalid signatures, missing installation IDs, unchanged resources, no wakeups, and successful reconnect after verification. - Document the recovery behavior. ## Verification - The targeted regression reproduced the attention-state failure before the change. - All ten recovery cases pass after the change. The tests cover disabled and unavailable repositories, content-free verification, and installation events after verification. - Server typecheck passed. - All 260 GitHub integration tests passed after the review fixes. Final server typecheck also passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - The full local suite is running. One unrelated workspace-runtime conflict-reference test failed and then passed on its isolated rerun. Final totals and CI/review outcomes will be updated before merge. - Live verification will use the existing advisory review bot after deployment. ## Risks - Attention-state ordinary events authenticate under the current credential lease without creating a durable content record. They return before resource reconciliation or runtime creation. - Verification is still bound to the current credential lease, runtime generation, valid signature, and installation ID. It does not activate the bot or replace normal setup checks. - Paused, revoked, archived, and unconfigured connections retain their existing ingress rules. No schema changes or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 #` / `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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 05:23:42 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	a8b652b085	fix(github): preserve review delivery through reconnect (#16259 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. Expected behavior A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. Steps to reproduce 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub\|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 #` / `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>	2026-10-13 22:24:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	473c80d13f	Automatically import and update project repository skills (#16066 ) Automatically import skills from new GitHub project repositories and update enabled sources in the background. Preserve project-derived access, saved selections, immutable execution versions and explicit pins; add legacy adoption, refresh and connection repair in Sources. Include durable scheduling and bounded work credits, production Storybook journeys, real GitHub-to-routine acceptance receipts and final-head CI/security/Greptile qualification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 16:11:43 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7eea9d8214	fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. Current behavior Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. Proposed behavior Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. Reason and benefit Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. Breaking changes The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, 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>	2026-10-13 15:33:05 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	833769ab55	perf(chat): schedule Telegram maintenance from commits and deadlines (#16094 ) Replace periodic Telegram discovery and maintenance scans with bounded startup recovery, connection-specific commit notifications, and durable action deadlines. Preserve ownership, inactive subscription parking, retry and cleanup recovery, and atomic credential binding updates. Verified full typecheck/build, 30 focused scheduler tests, 12 database-backed recovery cases, all current-head CI checks, and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:55:27 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	df06df2306	fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. What happened? With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. Expected behavior Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. Paperclip version or commit Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. Deployment mode Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## 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>	2026-10-13 07:40:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d837b65be8	refactor(server): move provider setup, inventory and delivery into channel folders (#16058 ) Consolidate the ten reviewed provider-folder extractions. Preserve the verified source tree and current master changes. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 00:26:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d7f55e4be	fix(apps): show user avatars and center access rows (#15577 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their access to apps. > - The app access page shows people with linked chat accounts. > - The identity response omitted the user's saved image. > - The row placed the avatar beside only the first name line. > - This change returns the image and centers the avatar beside both name lines. > - People can recognize linked accounts and still see initials when no image is available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The app access page showed initials even when the linked Paperclip user had a profile image. The avatar was above the vertical center of the Disconnect button. Expected behavior Show the linked user's saved image. Center it beside the Paperclip and chat names. Keep initials when no image is available. Steps to reproduce 1. Link a Slack account to a Paperclip user with a profile image. 2. Open the app's Access tab. 3. Inspect the person's avatar and the two name lines. Searched public issues and pull requests. No duplicate fix was found. Related avatar work in #15095 concerns agent uploads, not linked user profiles. ## What Changed - Return `paperclipUserImage` from the chat principal service and declare it in the API and client types. - Use the shared avatar primitives and center the avatar beside the full name block. Keep full names available in hover text. - Add image and initials examples to the existing Storybook access story, with image and alignment checks. - Extend the service test to check saved images and missing images. ## Verification - Token gates and `git diff --check` pass. - The 33 existing chat setup and identity-link UI tests pass. - The OAuth installer service regression test passes. - Chromium rendered the Storybook Access story at desktop and mobile sizes. The avatar, name block, and Disconnect button centers all measured 307 CSS pixels on desktop. - UI typecheck passes. Full repository typecheck and build stop at the Rust runner because this workspace has no `cargo`. The initial parallel typecheck also exceeded the 4 GiB workspace limit. The full local test attempt was stopped as memory approached the 4 GiB limit; it has no complete verdict. CI passed the full build, typecheck, test, and E2E lanes on the initial commit. The previously reviewed commit passed 54 checks with two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Master was merged on October 10 to resolve an import conflict; fresh CI is running for `24badb742d331c1b6ee3e90cbd06defefe5cd634`. Token gates and whitespace checks pass after conflict resolution. The single retry after CI runner shutdowns passed. Greptile gives this commit 5/5, with both review threads resolved. ### Screenshots The Storybook fixture shows an image, fallback initials, and a pending account. ![Desktop access rows](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/fix/app-access-user-avatar/doc/screenshots/app-access-avatar/desktop.png) ![Mobile access rows](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/fix/app-access-user-avatar/doc/screenshots/app-access-avatar/mobile.png) ## Risks Low risk. The API field is additive and needs no migration. The image uses the same avatar primitive as other user identities. Missing or failed images retain the initials fallback. Other chat providers share this access row. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. ## 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 - [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>	2026-10-12 23:54:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e168512f7b	perf(chat): stop polling failed run retries (#15871 ) Stop one-second scans of failed chat-run retries. Wake the existing retry queue after transaction commits and at saved retry or stale-claim deadlines. Preserve claim fences, authorization, recovery, and idempotent agent admission. Resolve conflicts with the current chat-service extraction by applying the retry signals and shared deadline predicate in the failed-run retry module. Verified with pnpm typecheck, pnpm build, all 1,328 chat and coordinator regression tests, and current-head CI. Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 19:49:47 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f329b24ee1	feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749 ) Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries. Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head `753680b61c`. All review findings are resolved; the PR records focused verification and historical acceptance limits. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f0e12c8519	Add managed Slack setup with an independent own-app path (#15679 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connects a person to an agent through an installed app and a verified identity. > - Independent installations must remain usable without Paperclip Cloud or manager credentials. > - Approved Cloud deployments can use Slack manager grants to create and install each agent's app. > - Both paths should share credential storage, identity checks, recovery, and the existing runtime. > - This pull request adds gated managed setup and keeps independent app setup under Advanced. > - It also makes ongoing connection settings and personal test messages easier to use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Slack setup, connection settings, tenant credential storage, and the Cloud connector handoff. Problem or motivation Approved deployments need an installation flow without pasted configuration tokens. Open-source users must retain their independent Slack app flow. A connection manager also needs a simple way to check a bot from Settings. Proposed solution Use the managed path when the instance is configured to support it. Choose agent and Connect are the two visible stops. Continue starts authorization or installation. Use your own app remains under Advanced before creation. Save personal manager grants by company, Paperclip user, Slack user, workspace, and manager app. Reuse only verified identities for test messages. Unknown identities must complete a private Slack connection challenge before linking and receiving the test DM. Alternatives considered A shared bot would change each agent's Slack identity. Requiring Slack CLI or a hosted service for self-hosted users would remove independent installation. Roadmap alignment This maintainer-requested change improves Connected Apps and experimental Agent Chat. It adds provisioning and management controls to the existing Slack runtime. Additional context The companion Cloud broker profile is a separate deployment prerequisite. Managed setup remains gated. Existing-app adoption is deferred. ## What Changed - Extract Slack registration, provider requests, completion, customer-owned setup, managed setup, and personal manager grants into focused services. Preserve the compatibility facade and independent removal cleanup. - Add company-scoped manager grants and a registration reference through an additive, idempotent migration after current master. Keep runtime credentials separate from app-registration secrets. - Add authenticated manager authorization, sealed handoff, serialized refresh and revocation, app creation, managed installation, and installer-bound OAuth fallback. - Preserve creation intent, block automatic uncertain recreation, save credentials before downstream checks, and validate app, workspace, bot, scopes, and installer identity. - Add the two-stop production wizard and ordered stories. Keep the own-app, manual, existing-app, and legacy-draft paths. - Simplify Settings. Open Slack configuration targets the saved app. The test-message action has its own row. Remove the old manual-avatar section, channel-message section, and broken permissions link. - Add paginated account discovery and a private connection challenge for unknown accounts. Expired invitations stop waiting and offer a new private invitation. Save send receipts before provider dispatch and preserve confirmed delivery when activity logging fails. - Reinstall the saved managed app on explicit reconnect, replace revoked credentials, and resume completion. Persist reconnect intent and duplicate-request receipts without creating another app. - Update provider browser tests, recovery tests, secret redaction, setup documentation, and the agent prompt. Preserve current master's durable verification scheduling. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck and repository build passed on `56d389d47a`. The subsequent reconnect retry fix in `288364eada` also passed UI typecheck and UI build. - 114 focused Slack registration cases and 13 production managed-wizard cases passed, including fresh-token reconnect, retry after installation failure, and duplicate reconnect requests. - All nine affected Slack browser cases passed against the production UI and a disposable fixture server. They cover managed setup, automatic setup, own-app selection, refresh, recovery, mobile behavior, and connection settings. - Eight focused real-database test-message cases passed. They cover a private ownership challenge, saved grant reuse, account pagination, revoked and conflicting links, workspace mismatch, disabled DMs, revoked membership, audit failure, ambiguous dispatch, and secret canaries. - UI token gates and the production Storybook build passed. - Greptile reviewed exact head `288364eada5d9c114fad991ff634612639d06672` at 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. - The full repository test suite and current-head CI are running. Their final results will replace this line before merge. - Earlier live feature previews created two bots in the authorized Paperclip Slack workspace and reused one personal manager grant. Local managed Continue created and installed a bot without a configuration token or a separate Add to Slack action. Avatars, welcome DMs, signed callbacks, and direct replies were observed. A Settings test DM also arrived in the signed-in user's Slack account. - Earlier staging thread qualification required manual publication recovery for one bot. Current-head live qualification remains required before enabling the production default. Fixture results do not establish Slack approval behavior in other workspaces. ## Risks - Personal manager tokens can create apps. They stay in scoped vault entries. The manager client secret stays at the broker. Company, actor/session, origin, and app identity checks apply throughout setup. - The additive migration must also work on qualification instances that applied earlier branch migrations. Table, column, index, and constraint creation is idempotent. - Creation and message timeouts can leave uncertain outcomes. Saved request IDs prevent automatic duplicate dispatch. - Unknown Slack identities must receive and complete their private challenge while signed in. Account selection alone does not grant Paperclip permissions. Existing revoked or conflicting links are not overwritten. - A development-only manager transport uses an explicitly configured private credential file for local qualification. Production ignores this transport; no manager credentials are bundled with open source. - Managed rollout requires Slack approval, the companion broker deployment, configured secrets, and final live qualification. Removing a connection does not delete its Slack app. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID or context-window size. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [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>	2026-10-12 15:34:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1e0cfcb4fc	test: retire redundant suites and consolidate owner coverage (#15978 ) Retire duplicate ACPX and Codex proof after migrating unique assertions to their behavioral owners. Consolidate repeated fixtures and exact case matrices while preserving lifecycle, protocol, company, credential, approval, and ordering contracts. Remove the unused runtime-controls compatibility path and document test ownership and preservation evidence. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 10:44:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e733bddc45	perf(chat): stop polling provider action and session sync queues (#15822 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat stores pending provider actions in durable database rows. > - Three action queues still scan every second when empty. > - These scans keep idle databases active. > - This pull request wakes those queues after a commit or at their next deadline. > - Empty queues stop querying while existing recovery rules remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15808, #15802, #15625. Related sleep work: #15750, #15757. What existing behavior does this improve? Provider messages and notices, accepted GitHub webhook receipts, and Slack session status synchronization. Current behavior Chat maintenance scans these three queues every second. It also rechecks paused Slack sync rows every 30 seconds. Proposed behavior Reuse the transaction-aware action workers and existing chat_actions rows. Wake after commits. Restore unfinished work on startup. Use stored retry and stale-claim deadlines. Stop scanning when empty. Park paused Slack sync rows until an endpoint change. ## What Changed - Add three topics to the existing action worker registration. No tables, migrations, triggers, or external services. - Signal producers, claims, retry updates, terminal settlements, and operator resolution inside their owning transaction. Provider I/O remains outside transactions. - Share pending-state and deadline predicates between dispatch and scheduling. Exclude terminal history and uncertain provider sends. - Preserve GitHub receipt attempt fences and provider-send quarantine. Preserve Slack's 30-minute refresh while a session is processing. - Remove these workers from periodic app maintenance. Update the sleep inventory and add regression coverage. ## Verification - Passed: 13 focused tests across scheduler, app wiring, and real PostgreSQL integration. Covers actual commit wakes with deferred fast paths disabled, GitHub retries and startup recovery, stale-send quarantine, Slack publication-to-sync delivery, paused deadlines, and idle queues. - Passed: pnpm typecheck. - Passed: full chat integration and related coordinator suites, 1,274 tests across five files. - Passed: pnpm build. - Greptile: 5/5, no actionable findings, completed on `dc284cd275e5f6df624d60b27954421f2bcdbee2`. - Hosted CI: 54 checks passed, two intentionally skipped Storybook checks, no failures or pending checks on `dc284cd275e5f6df624d60b27954421f2bcdbee2`. Provider responses are simulated. PostgreSQL, transactions, service dispatch, and scheduling are real. No live Slack or GitHub App was used. ## Risks - Writers must emit the existing process-local transaction signal. Independent database clients and direct SQL still need explicit integration or startup recovery. - Accepted GitHub receipts are covered. Finding callbacks GitHub never delivered still uses the separate provider recovery lane. - Other chat maintenance and persistent transports still run. This does not establish whole-instance sleep. - Existing claim, revision, credential, and authorization checks remain authoritative during concurrent foreground and scheduled dispatch. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code execution, and automated 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-11 06:08:05 -05:00

1 2