6 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	30b753f614	perf(budgets): scope accounting and deliver enforcement asynchronously (#17046) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their paid work. > - Budgets must prevent new work and stop reported overruns. > - Cost settlement also ran serial lifecycle reconciliation for every eligible company agent. > - That made request latency grow with unrelated idle agents and delayed results on stop delivery. > - This change separates atomic admission and accounting from durable asynchronous enforcement. > - Scoped live usage detects overruns without writing provisional ledger charges. > - The result is constant query scope for ordinary settlement and recoverable stop delivery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Settlement and budget checks entered company-wide lifecycle reconciliation. A company with 1,000 unrelated idle agents performed 1,001 accounting transactions for one ordinary cost evaluation. User requests could also wait for provider termination. Running usage checkpoints did not enforce reported monetary exposure. **Expected behavior** Keep the final reservation gate authoritative. Commit charges, scope blocks, and enforcement intent before returning. Deliver stop requests after commit. Read only applicable policies and execution scopes for ordinary charges. Stop long-running work when supported reported or priced usage establishes an overrun. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a disposable company with one company budget and idle agents. 2. Evaluate a charge below the budget with 0, 17, and 1,000 unrelated idle agents. 3. Compare query counts, company accounting transactions, and duration. 4. Use the controlled partial-usage and delayed-stop fixtures to check enforcement and request responsiveness. **Paperclip version or commit** The measured baseline is `6c9b87d0922f1ebfc43e8b0c36889ac5ba7b9837` from `master`. Related public work: Refs #16976, #2006, #3539, #13763, #14296, #16853, #13075. These cover the affected service charge, cancellation, and accounting paths. This change removes their shared reconciliation overhead. ## What Changed - Batch applicable policy exposure under the existing company accounting lock. Preserve exact fractional money and zero-reservation dispatch fences. - Commit a durable final budget dispatch claim before provider I/O. Retain a separate final issue/run ownership transaction through synchronous handoff, without holding the company accounting lock or awaiting provider work. Preserve native recovery lease checks and duplicate handoff fencing. Browser handoff rechecks current policy; it reuses a consumed rate slot only for the identical policy generation. - Separate ledger spend, live observed spend, and effective held capacity. Use the maximum of reservation and live observation for each unfinished operation. - Deliver budget cancellation through the existing coordinator. Revalidate generations and persist queued/running stop fences before external termination. Bound stop concurrency to four. - Apply agent holds only to the affected agent. Project budgets leave other projects running. Project real company transitions in bounded lifecycle batches. - Replace periodic broad reconciliation with durable pending work, startup repair, receipt replay, and concrete retry/window deadlines. Retain drain and idle-safety checks. - Enforce accepted cumulative usage checkpoints without provisional charges. Final accounting atomically replaces live exposure and settles reservations. - Add operator-gated budget spans, regression coverage, map updates, and a real-PostgreSQL comparison harness. No schema or first-party telemetry change. ## Verification - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes on the final ownership fix, rebased onto `bbcf5dfe98`. Production `pnpm build` passes on final head `4c5f4de8b1`. Map, module-boundary, token, and Storybook catalog checks pass. - Focused real-PostgreSQL coverage includes the 292-case rebased accounting/dispatch run, 63 browser cases, 52 run-control/cancellation cases, 42 policy-generation cases, 77 lifecycle/commentary cases, and the exact Muse confirmation regression. Native executor unit coverage passes all 768 cases. Final ownership coverage passes: 74 adapter/use-case cases, nine public regression cases, and the additional deleted-project race. These exercise competing ownership, budget changes and charges between phases, zero/nonzero duplicate claims, rollback, recovery contention, read-only capacity rechecks, and controlled HTTP startup after commit. Another 74 pure/startup/tracing cases pass. The complete CI matrix and both 5/5 reviews passed on `1ac9b58`; its external security scan identified a stale-owner handoff race. The final fix restores synchronous issue/run ownership fencing after the accounting transaction commits. Final head `8e84f55ce8` has fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero new comments, Paperclip review 5/5, and a passing security scan. The complete latest-head [CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39535189808) passes, including budget, browser, Runner, build, and canary jobs. The unchanged Runner close fixture passed on its sole same-head job retry. - Broad local `pnpm test:run` invocations were stopped before required source updates (rebase and review fixes). They are not claimed as full passes. Final full-suite coverage comes from the complete latest-head CI matrix; local focused coverage and the incomplete broad invocations are reported separately. - Reproduce performance with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-budget-enforcement.ts --baseline-ref=6c9b87d0922f1ebfc43e8b0c36889ac5ba7b9837`; repeat with `--reverse`. The harness uses disposable real PostgreSQL, 20 warm samples per variant/count, and records raw timings, SQL/lock counts, agent reads, unchanged agent state, and query plans. Final production-source measurement revision: `eff713a4f72c7f4b7a4002a701cb481d4bfccd95`; the extended harness is committed in `4c5f4de8b1`. | Unrelated idle agents | Baseline median / p95 | New median / p95 | Baseline SQL / locks | New SQL / locks | New agent reads | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | 0 | 1.80 / 2.33 ms | 2.99 / 3.88 ms | 5 / 1 | 7 / 1 | 0 | | 17 | 15.53 / 19.55 ms | 2.24 / 2.60 ms | 90 / 18 | 7 / 1 | 0 | | 1,000 | 978.35 / 1,790.43 ms | 2.16 / 2.52 ms | 5,005 / 1,001 | 7 / 1 | 0 | - These measurements use local PostgreSQL 18.1 and Node 26.4.0 arm64. They isolate the cost-evaluation core and complete admission path, without hosted-region or provider latency. Prior-revision reversed-order controls also preserved the constant query counts; the final measurements above use the final production source. - Complete reserve → final ownership gate → immediate offline provider result is measured separately, with one responsible agent and one active operation at each unrelated-agent count. Admission p95 baseline/new: 0 agents **11.54 / 29.77 ms**; 17 agents **9.31 / 27.62 ms**; 1,000 agents **24.51 / 74.05 ms**. Baseline admission was already scoped; the stronger final fence adds bounded overhead. New counts stay constant at 53 Drizzle statements, three transactions, two company-accounting locks, and five agent-reading statements bound to the responsible agent. Zero unrelated-agent reads, exactly one provider callback per sample, and no leftover runs or holds. All admission scenarios stay below 250 ms. No external provider calls are included. - The partial-usage/delayed-termination fixture passed 20/20: receipt persistence p95 13 ms, receipt return to observed durable Stop fence p95 28 ms, complete receipt-start-to-fence p95 50 ms, unrelated database request p95 1 ms while termination was blocked. After releasing the controlled termination fixture, acknowledgement p95 was 14 ms. These are separately measured phases; fixture acknowledgement is not live-provider termination latency. - Models and provider deadlines are unchanged. No deployment, live inference, or staging acceptance is claimed. A quiet 30-minute follow-up waits for the merged revision on staging, then repeats classifier and controlled budget-stop acceptance in staging, recording hosted bookkeeping, queue delay, and actual provider acknowledgement separately. - Development failures retained: finalizer notification regressions (fixed; 27/27 affected cases passed), invalid browser admission fixture assumptions (fixed; browser coverage now passes 63/63), and first-head lifecycle/dispatch CI regressions (reproduced and repaired). A prior-head Cases E2E test hit its unchanged announcement-dismiss handler race while opening a filter; the same journey passed on `1ac9b58`. The external security review then found a stale-owner race between accounting commit and provider entry; final verification covers a competing run in that gap while retaining provider I/O outside the accounting lock. Early PostgreSQL startup attempts hit local semaphore pressure; serial reruns succeeded. The final-head Runner lane had one failure among 1,823 tests: the unchanged `timeout-attachment` fixture failed at its first process close after 6.28 seconds. The sole same-head job retry passed all 1,819 active tests (four skipped), including that fixture in 1.85 seconds. Three isolated local probes could not run correctly because the Rust fake-provider fixture binary was absent; cleanup masked the original startup failure. CI builds that fixture through its normal lane. These probes are inconclusive and are not counted as passes. ## Risks - This changes accounting, lifecycle, and cancellation ordering. Durable generations, source/sequence checks, ownership leases, and company locking remain required for correctness. - Provider stop acknowledgement can be slow or fail. Stop intent remains pending until existing termination proof succeeds; cancelled row status alone does not acknowledge delivery. - Mid-run limits depend on provider usage reports or supported price calculations. Providers that report only at completion cannot provide exact mid-call detection. - Signals are process-local wake hints for the supported single-active-writer model. Durable state and startup recovery remain authoritative. - There are no migrations, new queue tables, or cached balances. Repeat the classifier and controlled budget-stop acceptance after normal rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and parallel coding agents. The host does not expose the exact backend model revision or context-window size, so those values are not asserted. ## 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>	2026-10-21 07:23:00 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	799e4d556f	fix: make accounting durable and synchronize cost reporting (#14997) ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 22:26:48 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	984f092ddf	Add project and agent resource lifecycle hooks (#15280) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and projects for work. > - Plugins need reliable lifecycle hooks for these resources. > - In-process notifications can disappear during a restart. > - A lifecycle record must commit with the resource change. > - This pull request adds a generic lifecycle journal without provider calls. > - A later plugin delivery layer can use these records without losing lifecycle changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Resource provisioning needs durable hooks for agent hiring, pause, resume, termination, and project creation. Hooks must cover shared service callers, budget actions, and approval paths. Capture should work for all plugins and deployment modes. **Proposed solution** Record content-free events in the resource transaction. Deduplicate creation and unchanged status. Preserve each pause/resume cycle. Commit approval, activation, and creation together. Commit termination and API-key revocation together. **Alternatives considered** Event subscriptions alone cannot survive process failure. Cloud-only capture would exclude other plugins. Provider calls inside tenant transactions would couple resource creation to external services. **Roadmap alignment** This is lifecycle infrastructure for the existing plugin system. It adds no provider, adapter, UI, or plugin read API. Repository mutations and backfill remain separate work. Searches found no duplicate lifecycle-journal PR. ## What Changed - Add a company-scoped lifecycle journal and an additive migration. - Record hired-agent and project creation from shared services. - Record agent pause, resume, and termination, including generic updates and budget actions. - Lock agent state changes to suppress concurrent duplicate hooks. - Make hire approval, rejection, and termination transactions atomic with their lifecycle records. - Document capture, ordering, future per-plugin acknowledgments, and migration scope. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Production build: `pnpm build` passed. - Focused agent, project, approval, budget, and built-in regressions: 102 tests passed across 9 suites. - Final lifecycle journal check: 14 tests passed. It covers repeated/concurrent transitions, rollback, key revocation, self-hosted capture, and company boundaries. - Review regression: 32 lifecycle and approval tests passed, including rejected-hire rollback and retry; server typecheck passed after the fix. - The initial local `pnpm test:run` overlapped the rejection fix and reported the new rollback regression against the earlier service code. A fresh lifecycle run passed all 14 tests. Fresh full local shards were stopped once the complete CI test matrix passed on the final commit. - `git diff --check` and a local secret/PII scan passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on `3ee3903f8e1a171ea3ba2bea9caa2b5766a3f807`, with the review thread resolved. - [Complete CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37374227222) on `3ee3903f8e1a171ea3ba2bea9caa2b5766a3f807`: general server/chat/workspace tests, serialized server suites, runner checks, build, typecheck, canary, and all end-to-end shards. The requester waived CI during the Actions outage, but the workflow subsequently completed successfully. ## Risks - The migration creates an empty table. It does not scan or backfill existing resources. - Apply the normal database migration before running this server version. Event-write failure intentionally rolls back the resource change. - Pending hires cannot bypass approval through pause or resume. - Capture works on all deployments. Plugin delivery, retention, retries, and provider actions remain separate work. No plugin can read this journal through a new API in this PR. - Future delivery must enforce company scope, track acknowledgments per plugin, and preserve resource order. A global sequence cursor can skip uncommitted transactions. - A termination hook does not authorize deleting persistent volumes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and tool use. 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>	2026-10-05 15:58:38 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	ef617bee5c	[codex] Enforce backend execution release gates (#9089) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Backend execution safety is part of the control plane contract: agents must stop at budget hard limits, stale execution paths must not create duplicate live work, and checkout ownership must remain authoritative. > - The recovery branch bundled these release-gate checks with broader unrelated work. > - Reviewers need a narrow PR that isolates only the backend safety behavior and regression coverage. > - This pull request keeps budget incident creation idempotent so repeated evaluation does not duplicate release-gate telemetry or approvals. > - It also adds focused coverage for idle timer skips, stale queued-run behavior, and live checkout conflict preservation. > - The benefit is a smaller, reviewable release-gate slice for budget hard stops, stale execution recovery, and ownership-safe issue mutation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8866 This PR extracts a focused backend safety slice from the closed broad recovery PR. The underlying problem is that release-gate behavior needs direct regression coverage before review: budget hard stops should not duplicate incidents/logging on repeated evaluation, timer wakes should respect the no-actionable-work skip policy, stale queued runs should remain invalidated, and active checkout ownership must survive conflicting checkout attempts without side effects. ## What Changed - Made budget incident creation report whether an incident was newly created, so soft/hard threshold activity logs are emitted once per incident window. - Added embedded Postgres budget release-gate tests covering soft incident idempotency, hard-stop pause/cancel behavior, budget override resume behavior, and telemetry redaction. - Added heartbeat coverage for skipping generic timer wakes when the agent opts into `skipTimerWhenNoActionableWork`, while preserving legacy/proactive timer behavior. - Added stale execution lock route coverage proving a conflicting checkout returns `409` without overwriting live checkout or execution ownership and without writing checkout activity. ## Verification - `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/budgets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - First run: 3 files passed, 98 tests passed; `issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` failed during import because the isolated worktree initially lacked dev dependency links for `supertest`. - `CI=true NODE_ENV=development pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - Recreated worktree dev dependency links; emitted unrelated plugin SDK bin warnings because plugin SDK dist files were not built under `--ignore-scripts`. - `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - Passed: 1 file, 7 tests. - `git diff --check` - Passed. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The production code change is intentionally small and only suppresses duplicate threshold activity logging for already-open budget incidents, but it affects budget release-gate observability. The new tests use embedded Postgres and should catch regressions in budget hard stops, timer wake gating, stale queue invalidation, and checkout conflict preservation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-use enabled. ## 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>	2026-07-06 16:33:36 -05:00
Dotta	8fbbc4ada6	Fix budget incident resolution edge cases	2026-03-16 16:48:13 -05:00
Dotta	5f2c2ee0e2	Harden budget enforcement and migration startup	2026-03-16 15:11:34 -05:00