mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
cccde7122b9717b26737ebf4dd969c214191a71d
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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
|
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ed2c22ea8c |
feat(connections): simplify dedicated GitHub App setup (#15416)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and the tools each agent can use. > - GitHub bots need their own App identity and restricted repository access. > - Manual App configuration and repeated setup gates make that connection hard to finish. > - GitHub can create an App from a manifest, but people must approve creation and repository access. > - Each Paperclip stack should own configuration, credentials, signature verification, and task admission. > - This change uses Cloud as an encrypted callback and event gateway, then completes setup in the stack. > - GitHub review bots have their own experimental setting. Chat connector opt-in does not control them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Dedicated GitHub App setup, bot settings, and task-scoped GitHub replies. **Current behavior** Users must configure an App, copy credentials, repeat repository selection, and complete manual verification gates. Review settings are hard to scan. Mentions in descriptions can be missed, and automatic completion text can produce an extra GitHub comment. **Proposed behavior** Choose an agent and connect GitHub under a personal account or organization. GitHub asks for creation and installation consent. Paperclip resumes the same draft, stores secrets locally, imports access, verifies delivery, and opens Settings. Each accepted request has one editable App-owned comment for progress and results. Review assessments produce deterministic checks for the reviewed commit. **Breaking changes** GitHub bots require their own default-off experimental opt-in. The setup-method and delegated-agent screens are removed. Per-person automatic-run flags remain readable but are replaced by author filters. Existing connections, direct webhooks, saved restrictions, and manual existing-App recovery remain supported. Companion gateway: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/688 (merged). The roadmap and related PRs were checked; no duplicate dedicated-App wizard was found. ## What Changed - Add an independent **GitHub review bots** setting across the catalog, routes, identity admission, and task controls. Existing bots continue running when the UI setting is off. - Replace setup with Choose agent and Connect GitHub. Support personal and organization owners, inline low-trust conversion, saved drafts, known organization suggestions, automatic completion, and same-App recovery. - Keep manifests, OAuth PKCE, credential exchange, vault storage, installation verification, and original webhook-signature validation in the stack. Use the Cloud sealed gateway for public callbacks and outbound local delivery. - Add resumable owner metadata in migration 0323. Retry a failed registration renewal through the same durable replacement rather than creating another App route. - Support authorized mentions in issue and PR bodies, comments, inline comments, and review summaries. Preserve attachments, edited-source identity, duplicate protection, and lifecycle invalidation. Filter requests explicitly addressed to another connected bot. - Give agents task-scoped review, comment, and update tools. Update one working comment through progress and final output. Close coalesced requests and recover delayed acknowledgements, including deleted earlier working comments. Preserve automatic replies for legacy connections without saved review configuration. Preserve partial publication evidence and quarantine uncertain automatic fallbacks without blocking Board messages or questions. - Reorganize Settings and Access with rich slash-skill instructions, numeric passing scores, clear automation controls, formal-review tooltips, member and contributor sections, and verified App branding links. Preserve invalid score drafts and automation choices across tabs. - Paginate repositories in 20-row batches with search and a true connection-wide toggle. Batch verification at GitHub's 500-ID token limit. Keep saved repository overrides while hiding their editor. - Give each review a detail URL that remains usable beyond the newest 100 records. Synchronize the manager OpenAPI contracts and add recovery, authorization, UI, and browser regressions. - Reconcile the current master branch and retain its agent avatar, feature catalog, and extracted heartbeat preparation code. Preserve a saved test-drive port and recover from an occupied high port. ## Verification - Focused UI, independent experimental-setting, and CLI tests: 199 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. The broad local Vitest attempt was interrupted after resource timeouts and stale expectations; the affected regressions passed focused reruns. The latest-head full CI matrix passed, including all browser shards, server/chat suites, builds, typechecking, canary packaging, and Docker context integrity. A Docker Hub 429 required a CI retry; it passed without changing the code. - Final review repairs: 127 attachment/event tests and server typecheck passed. All 13 final integration regressions passed under the normal CI timeout, covering legacy reply compatibility, deleted coalesced comments, inline-only review completion, progress edits, and native final recovery. Restart-safe description/review attachments passed the attachment suite. - Final regressions: four reply/lifecycle tests, both native GitHub wait tests, 171 feature-gate/reply-contract tests, the routed review preview, and five scheduler/reply regressions passed. The final fixture repair also passed all six setup-continuation cases and all three complete chat-test shards in CI, covering terminal receipts and retries under the normal CI timeout. One loaded-host receipt run exceeded its local timeout; the exact case passed in an isolated rerun and the complete CI shard. - GitHub integration tests cover personal and organization setup, retry recovery, edited mentions, attachment provenance, coalesced requests, delayed acknowledgements, partial review writes, old review URLs, and company boundaries. - Browser qualification: both GitHub journeys, all five provider setup/management journeys, and the GitHub uncertain-send recovery journey passed. GitHub setup, reconnect, and task replies run with chat disabled; chat enabled alone cannot expose GitHub bots. The disposable qualification database was removed after testing. - Earlier live qualification verified App-owned issue replies, native slash-skill invocation, progress comment edits, and a 5/5 PR review with a passing current-head check in the dedicated permissions-smoke repository. These live checks did not use personal credentials as bot execution authority. ## Risks - Deploy the merged Cloud gateway protocol before the stack update. Each callback and encrypted event must retain the original instance and tenant binding. - Migration 0323 uses idempotent column additions for test installations that already applied the earlier draft migration number. - A verified connection does not prove runtime isolation or a completed review. Runtime checks remain separate. - Required merge checks must be configured in GitHub. A passing numeric score does not formally approve a PR; approval and request-changes tools remain opt-in. - Existing-App credentials cannot silently renew an uncertain manifest exchange. Recovery preserves the existing App, draft, connection, and agent. - Repository changes save immediately. Global toggles affect all currently available repositories, including unloaded rows, without granting new installation access. - A failed or uncertain tool write suppresses automatic fallback text; the governed outbox retains its evidence. Deleted or replaced response comments are not recreated through a personal credential fallback. - GitHub logo upload remains an optional human action in GitHub App settings. Runtime provisioning, delegated setup, screenshot publication, and production push delivery remain deferred. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context 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 references) - [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 suites; complete test matrix is checked in CI) - [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> |
||
|
|
cad26c6bfb |
fix(tool-gateway): bound MCP discovery memory and concurrency (#14864)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents discover governed tools through the MCP gateway. > - A listing repeated policy and full run-row reads for each catalog tool. > - Parallel listings multiplied those allocations during run startup. > - One 900-tool baseline listing used 11,489 queries and about 1.7 GiB of extra heap in a fixture. > - This pull request shares reads within a listing and bounds whole listings across the process. > - The benefit is lower discovery memory use while execution still checks current policy. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13115. Its on-demand target change affects the same listing loop. **What happened?** MCP discovery repeated roughly 13 reads per tool. Full run snapshots and repeated connection configurations caused large allocations. Per-listing bounds alone did not limit concurrent listings across gateways. **Expected behavior** Discovery reads shared inputs once per listing. The process bounds active and queued listings. Catalog payload size and policy evaluation still grow with the catalog. Tool execution checks current access rules. **Steps to reproduce** Create a company with a remote MCP connection, 900 catalog tools, large schemas, and a large run snapshot. Send concurrent tools/list requests using a run-bound gateway token. Run the committed benchmark for a deterministic reproduction. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline: |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8813a50105 |
feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. **Proposed solution** Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. **Alternatives considered** A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the environment. ## 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> |