PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-26 10:26:26 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	5545f6d166	feat: let user messages continue stopped native tasks (#13239 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold. > - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes. > - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message. > - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior execution stops. > - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the existing execution gates. > - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server task wake admission and native execution recovery. Problem or motivation A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can answer. Proposed solution Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together. Roadmap alignment This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and recovery behavior. Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation. This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery eligibility and budgets. ## What Changed - Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held predecessor has stopped. - Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership, controller, and cleanup leases. - Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed incident's attempt count. - Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history. - Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake authority from later automatic replacements. - Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction rules. - Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution contract. ## Verification - [Full CI run 34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213) passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved, and security checks passed. - All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase onto master. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites; local tests used the targeted suites above. - Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes. ## Risks - A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves prior history and does not replay recorded calls. - Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove that execution stopped. - No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not awakened by deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more specific model build 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>	2026-09-11 12:33:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b1efd65edc	fix: continue interrupted task conversations with bounded retries (#13237 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart. > - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent execution hold. > - That hold could also reject a later user message. > - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior tool calls. > - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue within the existing retry budget. > - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter. Expected behavior Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user request through the normal execution gates. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter. 2. Restart the server while the provider is working. 3. Let the previous run become interrupted. 4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old behavior. Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation recovery through the existing bounded scheduler. ## What Changed - Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules. - Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP session history even when a write outcome is unknown. - Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use full task context. - Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its retry takes ownership. - Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and do not wake historical tasks. - Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while deferred messages and execution remain gated. - Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution contract. - Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary. Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while still asserting both processes terminate. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Build passed: `pnpm build`. - Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites overlap. - Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries, restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates, and historical holds. - Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner verification. - Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased. - Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests. Token gates and whitespace validation pass. - Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write. - Final-head [CI run 34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394) passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes. - Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency, approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force. - No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded without changing task status or waking work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific model build 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>	2026-09-11 12:16:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	35fdc0c66b	fix: make task recovery durable and preserve current requests (#13075 ) Make task recovery durable and preserve the latest user request across native and legacy continuations. Keep routine recovery quiet and prevent replay when action outcomes are uncertain. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-09 09:14:25 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

5545f6d166

feat: let user messages continue stopped native tasks (#13239 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold.
> - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes.
> - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message.
> - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior
execution stops.
> - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the
existing execution gates.
> - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past
action.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Server task wake admission and native execution recovery.

**Problem or motivation**

A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new
user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can
answer.

**Proposed solution**

Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check
stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain
action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together.

**Roadmap alignment**

This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and
recovery behavior.

Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation.
This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery
eligibility and budgets.

## What Changed

- Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held
predecessor has stopped.
- Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership,
controller, and cleanup leases.
- Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed
incident's attempt count.
- Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history.
- Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake
authority from later automatic replacements.
- Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction
rules.
- Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution
contract.

## Verification

- [Full CI run
34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213)
passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported
checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
- Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are
resolved, and security checks passed.
- All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native
continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat
wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run
dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase
onto master.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the
final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites;
local tests used the targeted suites above.
- Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live
ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and
automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes.

## Risks

- A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves
prior history and does not replay recorded calls.
- Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware
stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove
that execution stopped.
- No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not
awakened by deployment.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more
specific model build 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>

2026-09-11 12:33:57 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

b1efd65edc

fix: continue interrupted task conversations with bounded retries (#13237 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart.
> - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent
execution hold.
> - That hold could also reject a later user message.
> - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior
tool calls.
> - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue
within the existing retry budget.
> - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task
behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be
cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path
could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter.

**Expected behavior**

Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible
provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not
replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user
request through the normal execution gates.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter.
2. Restart the server while the provider is working.
3. Let the previous run become interrupted.
4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old
behavior.

Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for
retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation
recovery through the existing bounded scheduler.

## What Changed

- Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep
native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules.
- Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP
session history even when a write outcome is unknown.
- Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use
full task context.
- Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as
process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its
retry takes ownership.
- Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in
bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and
do not wake historical tasks.
- Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or
environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice
after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting
contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while
deferred messages and execution remain gated.
- Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution
contract.
- Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider
fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary.
Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while
still asserting both processes terminate.

## Verification

- Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Build passed: `pnpm build`.
- Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`.
- Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry
and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites
overlap.
- Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries,
restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates,
and historical holds.
- Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner
verification.
- Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general
and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not
reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed
and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local
parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing
failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and
sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased.
- Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process
recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue
application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task
chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests.
Token gates and whitespace validation pass.
- Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause
scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting
behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case
verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write.

- Final-head [CI run
34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394)
passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported
checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are
resolved.

## Risks

- A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not
replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes.
- Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of
requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency,
approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force.
- No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded
without changing task status or waking work.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more
specific model build 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>

2026-09-11 12:16:04 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

35fdc0c66b

fix: make task recovery durable and preserve current requests (#13075 )

Make task recovery durable and preserve the latest user request across native and legacy continuations. Keep routine recovery quiet and prevent replay when action outcomes are uncertain.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-09-09 09:14:25 -05:00