PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	b5b9491f95	test(heartbeat): cover first resume with default workspace settings (#17948 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - Task continuations reuse provider sessions when effective configuration is unchanged. > - Repository projects can inherit isolated workspace defaults from a storage plugin. > - Initial workspace binding must not change those defaults. > - PR #17924 fixes policy resolution after binding. > - Its regression supplied an explicit task strategy. > - This pull request also tests unset task settings and an explicit isolated mode. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17924 and #17447. What happened? On Core revision `e71a23c01c8af0e0b4cc5ac983d86886ba324239`, the first continuation of a task with an inherited repository workspace reset its provider session for `workspaceConfig`. The workspace was reused and its configuration fingerprint did not change. Session preparation runs before workspace binding. The first run resolved the storage plugin's effective project policy. After binding, `!boundSourceWorkspace` skipped that resolver and parsed the raw policy instead. This dropped inherited provider and strategy fields from the session fingerprint. The persisted change from unset task settings to `reuse_existing` and `mode: isolated_workspace` exposed this path; redundant task mode values are already normalized. Expected behavior Initial binding and two unchanged continuations retain the session and workspace. Real effective policy changes still reset the session. Explicit task settings and source-free tasks retain their behavior. Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a default storage plugin with isolated Git worktrees. 2. Create a repository project with no explicit project policy. 3. Start a task with unset workspace preference and settings. 4. Continue the task twice. Paperclip version or commit The runtime fix is already merged in #17924 at `0b65926822aacde48729f4b82a5c333f4cadf375`. This PR adds regression coverage on that fix. It does not duplicate or relax runtime freshness checks. ## What Changed - Run the existing repository heartbeat regression with unset settings, an explicit isolated mode, and an explicit strategy. - Assert that binding persists the expected workspace preference and mode. Each case checks two unchanged continuations and a real policy-change reset. - Make synthetic storage inspection return the branch prepared for that workspace, so generated default branch names pass the existing branch validation. - Update the session verification recipe. ## Verification - All 240 tests pass across `heartbeat-session-preparation.test.ts`, `heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`, `project-workspace-provider.integration.test.ts`, `plugin-workspaces.integration.test.ts`, and `plugin-fresh-workspaces.integration.test.ts`. Run them from `server/` with `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/__tests__/<file>`. - Restoring the benchmark revision's `!boundSourceWorkspace` condition makes the unset-settings case fail on its first continuation: the dispatched provider session is null. Restoring #17924 makes the complete eight-case session suite pass. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` were attempted. Both stop at Runner Rust checks because this host has no `cargo`. Full `pnpm test:run` was started, then interrupted before its first group completed. It is not counted as a pass; complete suite coverage is left to CI. A separate server typecheck also stops at the missing Runner Rust toolchain. - Initial local attempts found stale cross-checkout dependency links and sandbox restrictions on PostgreSQL/IPC. Isolated workspace links and permitted local PostgreSQL resolved those prerequisites. The first new fixture attempt failed branch validation because inspection returned a hardcoded branch; the fixture now reports its prepared branch. - Greptile scores current head `5185e5e6443e0432b205a8ef63c5c878b9b74bdf` 5/5. Its check concluded success and found no actionable issues. CI is still running. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and heartbeat persistence with synthetic provider execution. No live deployment or TTFT result is claimed. ## Risks Low risk: this PR changes tests and the verification recipe only. Runtime behavior, authorization, and configuration freshness remain owned by the existing implementation. The local full checks are incomplete as stated above. The benchmark deployment needs a revision containing #17924 to receive the runtime fix. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code editing, and local 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 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>	2026-10-27 15:21:12 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	8b4ab65b1c	Add plugin-owned project storage and task workspaces (#17001 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks can use isolated repository workspaces. > - Core currently prepares those repositories on its own filesystem. > - A storage provider may only expose repositories inside remote agent computers. > - Project storage and task workspace preparation must have one provider owner. > - This pull request adds that contract and keeps execution as a separate plugin interface. > - Core keeps authorization, durable task bindings, and lifecycle fences. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Plugin SDK, project workspace policy, heartbeat preparation, execution leases, and workspace lifecycle. Problem or motivation Core cannot prepare a task workspace when its repository storage is unavailable on the Core host. An execution lease must not be required just to prepare persistent storage. Proposed solution Let one plugin provide project resource lifecycle and workspace prepare, inspect, restore, and remove behavior. Core reserves a task workspace before it calls the plugin. The plugin returns an opaque durable reference. The matching execution plugin receives that reference on its task RPC. Alternatives considered Preparing repositories on Core would require a provider mount on Core. Preparing them only during task launch would tie persistent workspace lifecycle to execution leases and agent availability. Roadmap alignment This extends the remote provider model in ROADMAP.md. Related execution work is in #16978. This PR does not replace that task bridge. Native execution of managed storage requires the bridge; this change fails closed when it is absent. ## What Changed - Add one storage provider declaration with supported modes/strategies, a capability, a validated RPC contract, and a test harness. - Persist provider ownership, repository revision, and execution-workspace identity before external effects. Reconcile retries with a stable operation ID. - Prepare provider storage before environment acquisition. Keep Core filesystem preparation out of this path. - Pin the durable reference to the matching execution plugin and validate the lease binding before task dispatch. - Route inspection, reopen, and removal through the existing lifecycle process. Keep local data when remote recovery is uncertain. - Keep the application database pool free during lifecycle locks. Preserve pending workspace selections, validate source edits before retirement, and retry unfinished closed storage cleanup. - Protect provider metadata and live repository sources from caller edits. Storage edits retire only closed records with confirmed removal; retired records cannot reopen. ## Verification - Current head `8214b3ca5`: all 25 provider lifecycle tests pass with `maxConnections=1`. They cover preparation, inspection, reopening, removal, a paused provider with responsive ordinary SQL and a competing source edit, pending selection preservation, rejected source edits, cleanup retry scheduling, and providers that cache operation results, and committed cleanup notifications for storage intent and recovered state. - Final frozen-tree lifecycle run on `8214b3ca5`: all 318 tests passed in 10 files, covering workspace services, reopen, compaction, task binding, project sources, heartbeat preparation, display caching, and source locks. - Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passes. The SDK build and all 128 SDK tests passed during initial verification; later SDK changes are documentation only. - Full CI on the previous head `ec5c7209a` passed all 55 applicable checks; 2 conditional checks skipped. Standard Greptile reviewed current head `342e6d9c3` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All 55 applicable CI checks passed on `342e6d9c3`; 2 conditional checks skipped. The Slack browser and CLI startup jobs passed on their single unchanged-head rerun. Its Apex review returned 4/5 with one pending-restoration issue. Commit `1b58943b1` reconciles that durable intent before cleanup, advances the generation without reopening the Core row, and blocks direct removal or retirement while intent remains unresolved. Standard Greptile reviewed `1b58943b1` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 54 applicable CI checks passed on `1b58943b1`; 3 conditional checks skipped. The chat job passed on its single unchanged-head rerun. Apex then returned 4/5 for a missing cleanup wake after recovery. Commit `8214b3ca5` atomically registers cleanup intent before storage intent and recovery-result writes. Its provider test observes real committed notification hints and the visible advanced generation. Standard Greptile reviewed `8214b3ca5` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 55 applicable current-head CI checks passed on the first run; 2 conditional checks skipped. Final Apex verification completed at 5/5 on this exact head: 38 files reviewed, no new comments, and no unresolved threads. The PR is ready for review and mergeable. - The first Apex review found five issues after a standard 5/5: application-pool starvation, stale pending selections, retirement during rejected source edits, lost cleanup retries, and reused inspection identities. Commits `6d72e7fd4` and `342e6d9c3` fix each with regression coverage. Archive lock waits use dedicated connections, and source edits fail promptly if the lifecycle is busy. Retirement compares normalized values. The normalized-source regression initially failed with the raw-value comparison; after moving the check after normalization, a clean provider-suite rerun passed all 24 tests at that stage. Those threads are resolved; the earlier Apex 0/5 is not a passing acceptance result. - Earlier local integration attempts could not bind localhost inside the sandbox. The same suites passed with permission to start local PostgreSQL. - The earlier broad local `pnpm test:run` overlapped edits and reported stale-revision and checkout-path/Git-fixture failures. It was not a final-tree result. Full CI subsequently passed; the original local failure remains part of verification history. - Local repository-wide typecheck/build cannot complete because `cargo` is unavailable. Direct server TypeScript checks and affected tests pass; full Rust and build validation comes from CI. - An earlier browser run on `ff918c5a8` failed in the unchanged case-filter journey: expected “Done,” received “All statuses,” with an announcement handler recorded during the assertion. The cause is not confirmed. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39500611857/job/118896954508) remains verification history. The unchanged shard passed in the next full CI run on `ec5c7209a`; no UI or fixture change was made. - Current-head browser shard 2 failed waiting five seconds for the mocked Slack setup Success heading. This PR changes neither that UI nor its fixture. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021232) remains verification evidence. The cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-shard rerun passed; no UI or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The workspace test shard passed its 3,978 general tests, then its CLI company-import/export fixture timed out after 30 seconds waiting for startup health before creating any company or workspace. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021855) remains verification history. The child reached external-PostgreSQL startup without exiting or reporting an exception. Its cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-job rerun passed, including the CLI fixture. No startup or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The new cached-removal regression initially failed because its fake worker advertised availability for unrelated fixture plugins, so another workspace changed its fake checkout state. Worker availability now matches the fixture plugin; the complete 25-test provider suite passes. - On `1b58943b1`, the chat shard timed out polling for one conversation after an authorized GitHub description edit. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39510521657/job/118930193418) remains evidence. The exact case passes locally against PostgreSQL (1 passed, 1,380 unrelated cases skipped), and this PR changes neither that test nor its handler. The original cause is unconfirmed; the single unchanged-job CI rerun passed without a code or fixture change. The original cause remains unconfirmed. - The diff was checked for credentials, private references, and generated artifacts. ## Risks This is an additive provider contract with no database migration. Existing projects keep their local behavior unless their policy selects a storage plugin. A selected provider must be ready and enabled. Unknown or unsafe cleanup fails closed. Managed native execution depends on #16978. Core refuses a host Runner fallback. Providers must fence lifecycle generations, preserve ambiguous retries, and report remote recovery honestly. Provider-specific live storage and guest mount qualification remain separate from these Core contract tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code execution, and tests. The exact model variant was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (affected suites; broad-run limits are documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 16:35:33 -07:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

b5b9491f95

test(heartbeat): cover first resume with default workspace settings (#17948 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - Task continuations reuse provider sessions when effective
configuration is unchanged.
> - Repository projects can inherit isolated workspace defaults from a
storage plugin.
> - Initial workspace binding must not change those defaults.
> - PR #17924 fixes policy resolution after binding.
> - Its regression supplied an explicit task strategy.
> - This pull request also tests unset task settings and an explicit
isolated mode.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #17924 and #17447.

**What happened?**

On Core revision `e71a23c01c8af0e0b4cc5ac983d86886ba324239`, the first
continuation of a task with an inherited repository workspace reset its
provider session for `workspaceConfig`. The workspace was reused and its
configuration fingerprint did not change.

Session preparation runs before workspace binding. The first run
resolved the storage plugin's effective project policy. After binding,
`!boundSourceWorkspace` skipped that resolver and parsed the raw policy
instead. This dropped inherited provider and strategy fields from the
session fingerprint. The persisted change from unset task settings to
`reuse_existing` and `mode: isolated_workspace` exposed this path;
redundant task mode values are already normalized.

**Expected behavior**

Initial binding and two unchanged continuations retain the session and
workspace. Real effective policy changes still reset the session.
Explicit task settings and source-free tasks retain their behavior.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Configure a default storage plugin with isolated Git worktrees.
2. Create a repository project with no explicit project policy.
3. Start a task with unset workspace preference and settings.
4. Continue the task twice.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The runtime fix is already merged in #17924 at
`0b65926822aacde48729f4b82a5c333f4cadf375`. This PR adds regression
coverage on that fix. It does not duplicate or relax runtime freshness
checks.

## What Changed

- Run the existing repository heartbeat regression with unset settings,
an explicit isolated mode, and an explicit strategy.
- Assert that binding persists the expected workspace preference and
mode. Each case checks two unchanged continuations and a real
policy-change reset.
- Make synthetic storage inspection return the branch prepared for that
workspace, so generated default branch names pass the existing branch
validation.
- Update the session verification recipe.

## Verification

- All 240 tests pass across `heartbeat-session-preparation.test.ts`,
`heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`,
`project-workspace-provider.integration.test.ts`,
`plugin-workspaces.integration.test.ts`, and
`plugin-fresh-workspaces.integration.test.ts`. Run them from `server/`
with `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/__tests__/<file>`.
- Restoring the benchmark revision's `!boundSourceWorkspace` condition
makes the unset-settings case fail on its first continuation: the
dispatched provider session is null. Restoring #17924 makes the complete
eight-case session suite pass.
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass.
- Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` were attempted. Both stop at
Runner Rust checks because this host has no `cargo`. Full `pnpm
test:run` was started, then interrupted before its first group
completed. It is not counted as a pass; complete suite coverage is left
to CI. A separate server typecheck also stops at the missing Runner Rust
toolchain.
- Initial local attempts found stale cross-checkout dependency links and
sandbox restrictions on PostgreSQL/IPC. Isolated workspace links and
permitted local PostgreSQL resolved those prerequisites. The first new
fixture attempt failed branch validation because inspection returned a
hardcoded branch; the fixture now reports its prepared branch.
- Greptile scores current head
`5185e5e6443e0432b205a8ef63c5c878b9b74bdf` 5/5. Its check concluded
success and found no actionable issues. CI is still running.
- Tests use real PostgreSQL and heartbeat persistence with synthetic
provider execution. No live deployment or TTFT result is claimed.

## Risks

Low risk: this PR changes tests and the verification recipe only.
Runtime behavior, authorization, and configuration freshness remain
owned by the existing implementation. The local full checks are
incomplete as stated above. The benchmark deployment needs a revision
containing #17924 to receive the runtime fix.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code editing,
and local 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 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>

2026-10-27 15:21:12 -07:00

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

8b4ab65b1c

Add plugin-owned project storage and task workspaces (#17001 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Tasks can use isolated repository workspaces.
> - Core currently prepares those repositories on its own filesystem.
> - A storage provider may only expose repositories inside remote agent
computers.
> - Project storage and task workspace preparation must have one
provider owner.
> - This pull request adds that contract and keeps execution as a
separate plugin interface.
> - Core keeps authorization, durable task bindings, and lifecycle
fences.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Plugin SDK, project workspace policy, heartbeat preparation, execution
leases, and workspace lifecycle.

**Problem or motivation**

Core cannot prepare a task workspace when its repository storage is
unavailable on the Core host. An execution lease must not be required
just to prepare persistent storage.

**Proposed solution**

Let one plugin provide project resource lifecycle and workspace prepare,
inspect, restore, and remove behavior. Core reserves a task workspace
before it calls the plugin. The plugin returns an opaque durable
reference. The matching execution plugin receives that reference on its
task RPC.

**Alternatives considered**

Preparing repositories on Core would require a provider mount on Core.
Preparing them only during task launch would tie persistent workspace
lifecycle to execution leases and agent availability.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends the remote provider model in ROADMAP.md. Related execution
work is in #16978. This PR does not replace that task bridge. Native
execution of managed storage requires the bridge; this change fails
closed when it is absent.

## What Changed

- Add one storage provider declaration with supported modes/strategies,
a capability, a validated RPC contract, and a test harness.
- Persist provider ownership, repository revision, and
execution-workspace identity before external effects. Reconcile retries
with a stable operation ID.
- Prepare provider storage before environment acquisition. Keep Core
filesystem preparation out of this path.
- Pin the durable reference to the matching execution plugin and
validate the lease binding before task dispatch.
- Route inspection, reopen, and removal through the existing lifecycle
process. Keep local data when remote recovery is uncertain.
- Keep the application database pool free during lifecycle locks.
Preserve pending workspace selections, validate source edits before
retirement, and retry unfinished closed storage cleanup.
- Protect provider metadata and live repository sources from caller
edits. Storage edits retire only closed records with confirmed removal;
retired records cannot reopen.

## Verification

- Current head `8214b3ca5`: all 25 provider lifecycle tests pass with
`maxConnections=1`. They cover preparation, inspection, reopening,
removal, a paused provider with responsive ordinary SQL and a competing
source edit, pending selection preservation, rejected source edits,
cleanup retry scheduling, and providers that cache operation results,
and committed cleanup notifications for storage intent and recovered
state.
- Final frozen-tree lifecycle run on `8214b3ca5`: all 318 tests passed
in 10 files, covering workspace services, reopen, compaction, task
binding, project sources, heartbeat preparation, display caching, and
source locks.
- Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passes. The SDK build and all 128 SDK
tests passed during initial verification; later SDK changes are
documentation only.
- Full CI on the previous head `ec5c7209a` passed all 55 applicable
checks; 2 conditional checks skipped. Standard Greptile reviewed current
head `342e6d9c3` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All 55 applicable CI
checks passed on `342e6d9c3`; 2 conditional checks skipped. The Slack
browser and CLI startup jobs passed on their single unchanged-head
rerun. Its Apex review returned 4/5 with one pending-restoration issue.
Commit `1b58943b1` reconciles that durable intent before cleanup,
advances the generation without reopening the Core row, and blocks
direct removal or retirement while intent remains unresolved. Standard
Greptile reviewed `1b58943b1` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 54
applicable CI checks passed on `1b58943b1`; 3 conditional checks
skipped. The chat job passed on its single unchanged-head rerun. Apex
then returned 4/5 for a missing cleanup wake after recovery. Commit
`8214b3ca5` atomically registers cleanup intent before storage intent
and recovery-result writes. Its provider test observes real committed
notification hints and the visible advanced generation. Standard
Greptile reviewed `8214b3ca5` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 55
applicable current-head CI checks passed on the first run; 2 conditional
checks skipped. Final Apex verification completed at 5/5 on this exact
head: 38 files reviewed, no new comments, and no unresolved threads. The
PR is ready for review and mergeable.
- The first Apex review found five issues after a standard 5/5:
application-pool starvation, stale pending selections, retirement during
rejected source edits, lost cleanup retries, and reused inspection
identities. Commits `6d72e7fd4` and `342e6d9c3` fix each with regression
coverage. Archive lock waits use dedicated connections, and source edits
fail promptly if the lifecycle is busy. Retirement compares normalized
values. The normalized-source regression initially failed with the
raw-value comparison; after moving the check after normalization, a
clean provider-suite rerun passed all 24 tests at that stage. Those
threads are resolved; the earlier Apex 0/5 is not a passing acceptance
result.
- Earlier local integration attempts could not bind localhost inside the
sandbox. The same suites passed with permission to start local
PostgreSQL.
- The earlier broad local `pnpm test:run` overlapped edits and reported
stale-revision and checkout-path/Git-fixture failures. It was not a
final-tree result. Full CI subsequently passed; the original local
failure remains part of verification history.
- Local repository-wide typecheck/build cannot complete because `cargo`
is unavailable. Direct server TypeScript checks and affected tests pass;
full Rust and build validation comes from CI.
- An earlier browser run on `ff918c5a8` failed in the unchanged
case-filter journey: expected “Done,” received “All statuses,” with an
announcement handler recorded during the assertion. The cause is not
confirmed. [The failed
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39500611857/job/118896954508)
remains verification history. The unchanged shard passed in the next
full CI run on `ec5c7209a`; no UI or fixture change was made.
- Current-head browser shard 2 failed waiting five seconds for the
mocked Slack setup Success heading. This PR changes neither that UI nor
its fixture. [The failed
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021232)
remains verification evidence. The cause is not confirmed; the single
unchanged-shard rerun passed; no UI or fixture change was made, and the
original cause remains unconfirmed.
- The workspace test shard passed its 3,978 general tests, then its CLI
company-import/export fixture timed out after 30 seconds waiting for
startup health before creating any company or workspace. [The failed
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021855)
remains verification history. The child reached external-PostgreSQL
startup without exiting or reporting an exception. Its cause is not
confirmed; the single unchanged-job rerun passed, including the CLI
fixture. No startup or fixture change was made, and the original cause
remains unconfirmed.
- The new cached-removal regression initially failed because its fake
worker advertised availability for unrelated fixture plugins, so another
workspace changed its fake checkout state. Worker availability now
matches the fixture plugin; the complete 25-test provider suite passes.
- On `1b58943b1`, the chat shard timed out polling for one conversation
after an authorized GitHub description edit. [The failed
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39510521657/job/118930193418)
remains evidence. The exact case passes locally against PostgreSQL (1
passed, 1,380 unrelated cases skipped), and this PR changes neither that
test nor its handler. The original cause is unconfirmed; the single
unchanged-job CI rerun passed without a code or fixture change. The
original cause remains unconfirmed.
- The diff was checked for credentials, private references, and
generated artifacts.

## Risks

This is an additive provider contract with no database migration.
Existing projects keep their local behavior unless their policy selects
a storage plugin. A selected provider must be ready and enabled. Unknown
or unsafe cleanup fails closed.

Managed native execution depends on #16978. Core refuses a host Runner
fallback. Providers must fence lifecycle generations, preserve ambiguous
retries, and report remote recovery honestly. Provider-specific live
storage and guest mount qualification remain separate from these Core
contract tests.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code execution, and
tests. The exact model variant was not exposed.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR
following the relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (affected suites; broad-run
limits are documented above)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-20 16:35:33 -07:00