mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 00:26:28 +01:00
ce1ee9e89f588fb92a2ca1ab812202231df014a1
2697
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
ce1ee9e89f |
fix: stop prompts from encouraging subtasks (#20362)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents read runtime prompts, tool help, skills, and role instructions. > - Several of these texts tell agents to create child tasks as a normal next step. > - One accepted-plan prompt even forbids work on the current task. > - Task parentage is useful, but it does not need a prompt that encourages task creation. > - This pull request removes those prompts and keeps the task APIs available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10642. This change adjusts prompt wording; it does not add delegation-cycle guards. **Current behavior** Prompts tell agents to create children after plan approval, use children for long work, and create a task just to pass context. Onboarding requires a child even for a single request. **Proposed behavior** Continue work on the current task. Keep explicit assignments, optional task creation, parentage, dependencies, and approval gates. Use the separate-task recipes when the user requests that structure or when continuing existing work. **Reason and benefit** Reduce needless task trees without removing subtask support. Keep the patch limited to wording, existing test expectations, and generated catalog data. ## What Changed - Align accepted-plan prompts and remove direct child-creation advice from runtime and error text. - Make task tool descriptions neutral. Keep their fields, defaults, and handlers. - Update the main skill, onboarding, CEO instructions, company templates, specialist workflows, and matching guides. - Keep historical release snapshots intact. Refresh the explicitly seeded schema fixture's catalog digest; the server still verifies historical release snapshot hashes. - Refresh the affected generated catalogs, capability inventory, semantic contracts, and fixture manifest. ## Verification - Final tested head: `c6e304d0c105cdbfbe0b2ab0a233307fcd91a04b`. - All 66 check runs are complete: 60 pass, one is neutral, and five are skipped by CI conditions. Snyk also passes. No checks fail or remain pending. - [PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226554) passes typecheck, build, server/general tests, all eight E2E shards, Runner support, Runner Rust, and the aggregate verify gate. [Windows](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226546) and [Docker Runner](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226108) also pass. - [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751419835) and [Paperclip review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751454010) give this exact head 5/5. All six inline threads are resolved. Neither current summary has findings. - Merged master `bf0220d34a156c81853755c3d1365ddc527037de`. Resolved three generated-file conflicts with the canonical generators. - Local verification passes: 473 focused prompt, continuation, UI, catalog, runtime and native-execution tests; Runner TypeScript build; generated metadata; UI token gates; and diff checks. - The prior head `c22018cb0f` failed three SDK evidence tests because two source hashes were stale. Reproduced all three failures locally. The existing generator refreshed only the hashes for the denial-copy file and its test. All 53 affected evidence/source-pin tests then passed, including private-value rejection. No scanner logic, assertions, or runtime dependency pins changed. Current CI confirms the support suite passes. - A prior commit failed the Rust process reaping test. Its cause remains unproven. No Rust code or assertions changed. Later Rust runs pass; this does not establish the cause of the earlier failure. - Local preflight built shared/plugin SDK packages, then stopped because `cargo` is absent. Current-head CI supplies Rust and full build coverage. `pnpm verify --explain` selects broad required CI; full local suites were not repeated. ## Risks - Wording changes guide the model; they do not enforce a ban on subtasks. - Existing installed skill versions and saved custom instructions need their normal refresh process. This PR does not migrate company configuration. - Existing approved task assignments and approval gates remain in effect. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact routed model ID and context-window size were 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e5abcbf7a9 |
fix(native): release a restart claim that lapsed during a failed preparation (#20529)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - After a restart, native restart recovery claims an unfinished run
and prepares it again on the same heartbeat run.
> - The restart claim holds a lease on the run's native coordinator row.
For a remote claim with durable authority, the lease is 60 s.
> - When that preparation fails, the failure path first preserves the
remote workspace. Then it settles the run.
> - When preparation outlived the claim lease, preservation took the
run's own lapsed claim for another owner. It threw
`NativeWorkspaceFinalizationBusyError`, and the execution returned
without settling. The run stayed `running` with no event until a later
scan reclaimed it (4.5 min in one wave, never in another).
> - This pull request releases exactly that lapsed claim and asks
restart recovery to decide on the run right away. It also logs the cause
when the failure path defers.
> - The benefit is that a failed restart-claim preparation is reclaimed
or blocked visibly within seconds, instead of hanging.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #20514 (the same restart-chaos investigation).
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos wave `w-20261110T101517-s11936` (Daytona R1, K2, ST1),
run `9d39550a` got a `bootstrap_incomplete` restart claim (generation
3). Its `heartbeat.prepare.run_output` step waited 141 s through an ST1
storage outage. The 60 s claim lease lapsed meanwhile, and the begin
failed with `run_log_writer_authority_lost` when storage came back. The
inner failure path then called `preserveNativeFailedWorkspace`. Its
`ownsClaim` check required an unexpired lease, so the run's own claim
counted as another owner and the call threw
`NativeWorkspaceFinalizationBusyError`.
`preserveNativeWorkspaceOnFailure` set `nativeOwnershipHeld` and the
execution returned before `runCompletion.failRun`. No failure was
recorded, and nothing was logged. The run stayed `running` until a later
scan reclaimed it 4.5 minutes later. In a second wave no such scan came,
and the run stayed `running` for 30 minutes.
**Expected behavior**
A failed preparation must settle or retry, or be claimed promptly by its
next owner. It must not stay `running` with no record.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Claim a remote native run for restart recovery.
2. Keep its preparation busy past the 60 s claim lease, for example with
a storage outage during `runOutput.begin`.
3. Let preparation fail. The run stays `running` with no failure event.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
c58356003f |
fix(native): give run finalization its own retry budget (#20555)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs save an accepted result. Then a finalizer applies that
result to the issue.
> - After a control-plane restart, recovery can resume the same run.
Each resume uses one provider attempt (`coordinator.attempt`).
> - The finalizer used the same `coordinator.attempt` value as its own
retry budget. After three resumes, `attempt` was 3. So the first
transient finalization failure made the coordinator `terminal_failure`.
> - The result was then lost: the issue stayed `in_review` and no Retry
was available. This breaks the rule that a restart must not leave a task
stuck.
> - This pull request gives finalization its own retry count. Provider
attempts no longer use up finalization retries.
> - The benefit: a resumed run that finishes its turn also finishes its
task, and finalization stays bounded.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos wave `w-20261110T044338-s20385`, task t03 (local,
Codex, three K1 SIGKILL restarts, `--db-pressure 4`), recovery resumed
run `d5d0e839` three times (`providerAttempt: 3`). The resumed turn
completed and the server logged `run.result.accepted`, and the run ended
`succeeded`. The first finalization hit `NativeStatusRaceError` three
times under row contention. `recordRetryableFailure` then compared
`coordinator.attempt` (3) with its limit of 3 and wrote
`terminal_failure` / `native_finalization_retry_exhausted`. The run's
`execution.nextAction` is "Reassess against the latest authoritative
issue status version.", which only the `status_cas_exhausted` branch
writes. The second finalize call 2 s later got
`native_finalization_terminal_failure` from `claimCoordinator`. The
issue stayed `in_review` with `canRetry=false`.
**Expected behavior**
A transient finalization failure must stay retryable. The finalizer must
apply the saved result without another provider turn. Finalization must
still have a limit.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Resume a native run until its coordinator `attempt` is 3, for example
with three restarts.
2. Let the resumed run save an accepted result.
3. Make the first finalization fail with a retryable error.
4. Before this fix, the coordinator goes directly to `terminal_failure`.
The new test
`server/src/__tests__/native-finalization-retry-budget.test.ts`
reproduces this order.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The wave ran at e2b0290213. The bug is still on master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
bd30ef8510 |
perf(chat): authorize the waits of an issue page with one read (#20551)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can work on tasks that start from an external chat, such as Slack. When the agent waits for the next chat message, the task shows "in review" with an external response wait. > - Issue lists and inbox attention show these waits. To show a wait, the server checks that the chat conversation is still authorized: the messages, the destination, the endpoint, and each person who wrote. > - The server did this check one time for each waiting task, and it started all the checks at the same time. A page with 19 waits sent 19 copies of the message-link statement at the same moment, each on its own pool connection, and then 19 copies of each policy read. > - On a hosted database, 19 identical copies of this statement were active at the same moment, about 670 ms each. They were 19 of the 20 active queries. > - This pull request reads the messages of all waits of a page with one statement and shares the policy reads between the waits. Each wait gets the same authorization result as before. > - The benefit is fewer statements and fewer connections for each issue page, so one page cannot fill the pool with copies of one read. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20400 (shares wait reads between the callers of one request; this change removes the per-wait fan-out inside that shared read). Refs #18966 (reuses the prepared message-link statement; this change keeps that statement for single runs). **What happened** `listExternalReviewWaits` ran `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` one time for each waiting task, inside `Promise.all`. Each call sends the message-link statement, then a resource read, and three reads for each person. A page with N waits sent N copies of each statement at the same time, on up to N pool connections. **Expected behavior** One issue page sends one message-link statement for all of its waits. A resource or a person that is common to many waits is read one time. The authorization result of each wait does not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put many tasks of one company in review with an external chat response wait. 2. Open the issue list or the inbox. 3. Look at the active statements of the database. One copy of the message-link statement runs for each wait. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/chat-attachment-reuse.ts`: - Split `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` into steps: read the bound provider and wake comments, read the message rows, and apply the policy to the rows (`authorizeBoundRunLinks`). The single-run path uses the same prepared statement, the same lock modes and the same policy code as before. - Move the message-link join and its policy filters to one query builder, `boundRunLinksQuery`. The single-run statement and the batch statement both use it. - Add `authorizeChatConversationsForBoundRuns(db, companyId, runs)`. It is read-only and takes no locks. It reads the messages of all runs with one statement, then gives each run only the rows that the single-run statement returns for that run (same issue, agent, provider and comments). The runs share each distinct resource and principal read. Each run gets its conversation, or `null` for a policy denial. Other errors are thrown, as before. - Add `isBoundChatAuthorizationDenial` for the three policy denial errors. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/external-review-wait.ts`: `listExternalReviewWaits` uses the batch authorization. The inherited GitHub review-wait reads do not change. - `server/src/__tests__/batched-chat-authorization.integration.test.ts`: new tests on real PostgreSQL. For each case, the batch result must equal the result of separate single-run reads. The cases include each denial: a missing or foreign comment, no comments, no execution marker, a wrong provider, agent or issue, a person without a link or without a membership, a viewer member, a revoked link, a disabled or unavailable destination, a paused endpoint, a closed conversation, an unprocessed delivery, a delivery without a person, and a verifying endpoint. A test also makes sure that one person's decision never applies to another person in the same batch, and that a batch sends one message-link statement. - `scripts/benchmark-chat-bound-authorization.ts`: a local benchmark that loads the pre-fix modules from a baseline commit, checks that both versions return the same waits, and measures them. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/batched-chat-authorization.integration.test.ts src/__tests__/prepared-chat-authorization.integration.test.ts` passes (10 tests). - Mutation check: when I removed the issue filter from the per-run row selection, or shared one principal decision for all people of an endpoint, the new tests failed (1 and 3 failures). - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-reviewed-chat-binding`, `external-chat-wait`, `preserved-native-response-wait`, `chat-attachment-reuse` and `external-review-wait` (392 tests). - `pnpm verify` asks for broader verification because the change adds a file under `scripts/`. Required CI supplies that coverage. - Benchmark: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-chat-bound-authorization.ts --baseline-ref=f4337bb5fb` (the measured pre-fix commit) Benchmark fixture (synthetic, local PostgreSQL 18.1, pool of 10): one company, one Slack endpoint, 20 tasks waiting for a chat response from 5 people, 4 of those waits denied (the person is a suspended member), and 2,000 earlier conversations with 50,000 processed deliveries (6 KiB events, 419 MB). Both versions return the same 16 waits. 15 alternating pairs after warm-up: | One issue page (20 waits) | Before | After | | --- | --- | --- | | Statements sent | 101 | 18 | | Message-link statements | 20 | 1 | | Server time of the message-link statements | 0.50 ms (sum of 20) | 0.13 ms | | Page time, median (min to max) | 8.86 ms (6.94 to 12.05) | 4.05 ms (3.62 to 5.54) | | 8 pages at the same time, median (min to max) | 54.18 ms (48.36 to 89.24) | 14.99 ms (12.60 to 19.59) | ## Risks - The batch must give each wait the same result as a separate read. The batch statement uses the same join and policy filters. It then selects each run's rows with the equality filters of the single-run statement. The policy code is the same function for both paths. The tests compare both paths for each denial case. - Shared reads: the batch reads each resource and each person one time. All reads are plain reads with no locks, as before. A policy change that occurs during one page read can now apply to all waits of the page at the same time, instead of to some of them. - An invalid wake comment id in one wait makes the whole page read fail. This was already true: the failure of one wait rejected the whole `Promise.all`. - The single-run path (attachment reuse, status decisions, run preparation and others) keeps its prepared statement and lock modes. The order of the conditions in its WHERE clause changed; the conditions are the same. - Not proven: why each copy took about 670 ms on the hosted database. Locally one copy takes about 0.03 ms with the expected index plan. The likely causes are the burst of copies on a small compute and cold pages. Verify after deployment that the statement runs at most one time for each issue page request. - No migration and no schema change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
f4337bb5fb |
test(evals): land the chat catalog eval harness on master (#19614)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat-feature evals measure whether agents complete real chat requests through the product > - The chat catalog eval harness and its repairs live on the `chat-eval/master-candidate` branch, not on master > - Today's work made 139 of 242 chat evals pass in verified single-case live runs. Each product fix landed on master as its own pull request > - The eval-side changes (setups, graders, fault seams, evidence capture) still exist only on the candidate > - This pull request lands the harness on master. Master stays the source of truth for product behavior > - The benefit is one tree: evals run against master commits, and product fixes reach the evals as soon as they merge ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19441, Refs #19599, Refs #20270, Refs #20334, Refs #20342, Refs #20344, Refs #20354, Refs #20360, Refs #20373, Refs #20382, Refs #20409 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The chat catalog eval harness and the product it evaluates live on a long-running branch outside master. Eval fixes do not reach master, so master-based eval runs use old setups and graders. **Subsystem affected** `tests/runner-e2e` chat catalog harness, plus a small set of product changes that exist only on the candidate. **Proposed change** Land the harness on master. Every product fix from this eval work already merged to master as its own pull request. Conflicts keep master's product behavior. ## What Changed - Most of the diff (808 of 851 files) is under `tests/runner-e2e/`: chat-catalog domains, scenarios, descriptors, the TestOps manifest, private evidence tooling, and their tests. - Graders now check saved state, setup literals and rendered or clicked links. Many keyword and regex checks on free-form replies are removed. Each changed grader has a bumped `oracleVersion` and calibration tests (a valid reply, a reworded valid reply, and broken variants that must fail). - The shared link helper `hasLink` no longer treats a list link (for example `/COM/issues?view=mine`) as a link to every task without a URL key. - Setup fixes build real state through supported product routes: routine history, agent grants through the board grant route, budget holds with a real cap, and a storage-layer archive fault for `inbox-search.archive-partial-failure`. - Browser boundary journeys (sign-in, chat-disabled, onboarding) now write the standard pass evidence files. - Retargeted cases, approved by the maintainer: `agent-chat.chat-disabled` (Conference Room gate), `agents.restore-instructions` (no saved instruction history), `access.manage-membership` (member permission edits stay board-only). - The private evidence trusted files (`manual-private-handoff.ts`, `manual-private-retention.ts`, `manual-private-report-assets.ts`) are byte-identical to master. - Product files outside `tests/` (43 files, +1,328 −49) carry candidate-only changes that master does not yet have. Most are tests. The main code changes are in `request-human-input.ts`, `heartbeat-run-summary.ts`, `native-completion-feedback.ts`, `native-run-finalizer.ts`, `openapi.ts`, `secrets.ts` and `IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx`. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run chat-catalog-domains chat-catalog-contract.test.ts chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts unit-launcher.test.mjs --testTimeout=180000` in `tests/runner-e2e`: 269 files pass, 3,550 tests pass. - `node --test chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: no change. - `tsc` for `server` and `tests/runner-e2e`: clean. - Live single-case verification: 139 of 242 cases passed on paid runs, and a person read the saved evidence for each. These are single-case runs, not one full-cohort run. ## Risks - Large diff. Most of it is test-only, but the 43 non-test files change product code paths. Review those files first. - Some graders are now less strict on reply wording. A person must read replies for meaning on those cases. - 42 cases need disposable outside accounts (Notion, Slack, GitHub, Daytona and others) and stay blocked. `access.invite-teammate` stays failing until local agent isolation lands, because the runner's durable state keeps a live invite token. - The paid workflow compares the trusted private-evidence files with master. They are unchanged, so this risk is low. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in Claude Code. Subagents used the same model. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c9226de30b |
fix(heartbeat): leave a preparing run to the next controller after a graceful drain (#20514)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The heartbeat service runs each agent task. A graceful shutdown
(SIGTERM) drains running native runs and hands them to the next server.
> - The drain detaches the native runner session and releases the run's
lease with the recovery state `awaiting_runner_reattach`.
> - An in-process execution can still be in run preparation at that
moment, for example while the run-log journal claim waits on a slow or
unavailable object store.
> - When that execution then lost writer authority
(`run_log_writer_authority_lost`), the generic failure path settled the
run as `adapter_failed`. The next server then saw
`native_continuation_requires_reconciliation`, and replay stayed
blocked.
> - This pull request makes a preparing execution that a restart
detached stop quietly, the same way a detaching native session already
does.
> - The benefit is that a slow preparation step plus a graceful restart
no longer turns into a failed run that needs a manual retry.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos wave `w-20261110T092411-s701` (local, A1/C1, K1/K2, ST7
read-after-write lag), three of four tasks failed with R3
`retry_needed`. For run `218a0425`, the K2 SIGTERM drain wrote
`native.recovery.transition` with `awaiting_runner_reattach` and
released the lease. About 3 s later, the old server's in-process
execution, which was still in `runOutput.begin`, got
`run_log_writer_authority_lost`. `runCompletion.failRun` then settled
the run `adapter_failed` with a durable settlement. The next server
found `native_continuation_requires_reconciliation` and did not replay
the run.
**Expected behavior**
The drain hands the run to the next server. The old execution must not
settle it. A real authority loss outside a drain must still fail the
run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a native run recovery, and hold it in preparation (slow store,
ST1 outage wait, or ST7 lag).
2. Send SIGTERM so `drainRunningRunsForShutdown` suspends the run.
3. Let preparation continue and check writer authority. The run settles
`adapter_failed`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
15a734d068 |
fix(heartbeat): show a storage outage wait as live status, then record it once (#20460)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - In cloud mode a run reads and writes file storage on its critical path: it starts its run log (`s3_segments`), restores its saved workspace, and saves it again > - Since #20299 a run waits out a storage outage there for up to 5 minutes instead of failing > - That wait was silent. The board showed "running" with no sign of life, so a storage wait looked like a dead run (restart-chaos R5 `silent_dead_run`) > - The first version of this PR wrote a run event on every wait. That writes the run row (`next_event_seq`, `updated_at`) while the run-log claim is still in progress, and it covered only the run-log begin > - This PR shows the wait as live run status instead, writes nothing during the wait, and records one lifecycle event when the wait ends. It covers every critical-path wait in the run's storage scope > - The benefit is that a storage outage shows on the board as waiting, the run's history keeps one honest line about it, and the claim path is left alone ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20299 (wait out a store outage on a run's critical path). **What happened?** - `w-20261110T043533-s11936` (Daytona R1, ST1 194 s, K2): run `d49f58d8` waited 186 s in `heartbeat.prepare.run_output` with no event. The grader failed it as `R5:silent_dead_run`. - `w-20261110T105903-s11936`: the restore download (`storage.snapshot.download`) waited 182 s with no sign of life. **Expected:** the board shows the run waiting for file storage, and nothing about the notice can disturb run-log ownership. **On the failed `run_output` seen on builds of the first version** (`w-20261110T101517-s11936` t01 run `9d39550a`, `w-20261110T081647-s11936` t02 run `9da10424`): the evidence points to an expired restart lease, not to the notice's row writes. Neither the writer-authority check (`run-log-authority.ts`) nor the journal claim compares `next_event_seq` or `updated_at`. A remote `bootstrap_incomplete` restart claim gets a 60 s lease (`REMOTE_CONTROLLER_LEASE_MS`), and preparation renews it only for `reattach_remote_runner` claims. In t01 the claim was at 10:19:55, the outage ended at 10:22:18.15, and `run_output` failed at 10:22:18.17, on the first authority check after the store came back. That fix ships separately as its own PR. ## What Changed - `storage/storage-unavailable.ts`: - The run's storage scope can carry a wait observer (`reportStorageOutageWaitsTo`). - `retryThroughStorageOutage` tells it about each backoff (`waiting`). The operation that owns the wait reports one `ended` (`recovered` true or false), so nested waits do not double-report. - `storageOutageWaitFor(purpose, work)` names the step. - An observer that throws never changes the wait. `endStorageOutageWaitOn` keeps the observer. - `heartbeat/storage-wait-notice.ts` (new): - Each wait sets live runtime status (phase `waiting_for_storage`, "Waiting for file storage before starting the run log (45s so far)") and publishes `heartbeat.run.progress`. Nothing goes to the database. - When the wait ends, it writes one `lifecycle` warn event: "Waited Ns for file storage before …", with payload `reason: "storage_outage_wait"`, `purpose`, `waitedMs` and `recovered`. - `heartbeat.ts`: installs the notice next to `endStorageOutageWaitOn` (one line). - Purposes: - run-log begin: "starting the run log"; - `loadWorkspaceSnapshotArchive`: "restoring the workspace"; - `uploadWorkspaceSnapshot`: "saving the workspace". - `packages/shared`: adds `waiting_for_storage` to `HeartbeatRunStatusPhase`. - `tests/restart-chaos/live-status-evidence.ts` (new): R5 also counts the board's live run status (`/api/issues/:id/live-runs` `currentStatusUpdatedAt` / `lastEventAt`) as evidence that a running run is alive. Wiring it into `observer.ts` takes one import and one changed line. - `doc/run-log-events.md`: documents the live status and the one event. - Removed: the first version's per-wait run event. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/run-output.test.ts src/__tests__/storage-outage-wait.test.ts src/services/remote-workspace-snapshot-storage.test.ts src/services/object-byte-journal.test.ts src/__tests__/storage-s3-credential-rotation.test.ts`: 103 pass. - Red/green: with the observer disabled (master behaviour), these new tests fail. With this change they pass: - run-output "shows the wait as live status and writes nothing to the run while its log claim waits": no run-row write and no event during the claim's waits; the live status is `waiting_for_storage`; the claim's writer-authority check still passes; one lifecycle event afterwards; - the helper's observer tests (one end per wait; gave-up reporting; a throwing observer; the Stop signal keeps the observer); - snapshot storage "tells the run it is waiting for storage while a save or a restore waits out an outage". - `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false npx vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts tests/restart-chaos/live-status-evidence.test.ts tests/restart-chaos/observer.test.ts tests/restart-chaos/triggers.test.ts`: 65 pass. `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs tests/restart-chaos`: pass. `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit`: pass. - Live restart-chaos waves: results in a comment below. ## Risks - Low. - The retry policy, its budget and Stop handling are unchanged. - During a wait, the only new effect is an in-memory status and a live event. - Afterwards, one event per wait, written without blocking the run. - Runtime status is per server process. A board on another instance sees the waiting line only after the closing event. - Shared journal work (`runSharedStorageWork`) keeps its own scope without the observer. Its waits surface through the enclosing run-scoped wait, as before. - Previous-release state: this persists no new run or session state. A run saved by the previous release resumes unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
bf514759f9 |
fix(run-log): answer 404 for an object run log that was never written (#20539)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Each heartbeat run keeps a run log, and the board reads it through
`GET /api/heartbeat-runs/:id/log`
> - A run can store its log in object storage (`s3_segments`)
> - When a run fails before its log is written (for example in
`runOutput.begin`), the object store throws a plain `Error("Object run
log not found")`
> - The route turns that plain error into a 500, so the board shows a
server failure for a log that simply does not exist
> - The local file store already answers 404 `Run log not found` for the
same case, and the UI treats a 404 as an unavailable log
> - This pull request makes the object store throw the same 404
> - The benefit is that a missing object run log looks like a missing
log, and a real storage failure still answers 500
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`GET /api/heartbeat-runs/:id/log` answered 500 `Internal server error`
for an `s3_segments` run whose log was never written. The server error
was `Object run log not found` from the object run-log store.
**Expected behavior**
The route answers 404 `Run log not found`, the same as the local file
store. The transcript view already treats a 404 for a finished run as a
missing log, and the log viewer already treats it as an unavailable log.
A real storage failure still answers 500.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use S3 storage for run logs.
2. Make a run fail before its run log is written (for example in
`runOutput.begin`).
3. Read `GET /api/heartbeat-runs/<run id>/log`. It answers 500.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fea4530a30 |
fix(recovery): retry a preparation killed by a restart in the uncharged lane (#20534)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When the control plane restarts, an interrupted run must continue on its own. A user must not have to press Retry because a deploy or a crash happened > - A preparation that a restart stops before the provider starts spent no provider work. It is retried in the uncharged `interrupted_preparation` lane (12 retries), not the charged `transient_failure` lane (2 retries) > - #20496 made that work for a graceful drain (SIGTERM). A hard kill (SIGKILL) during workspace preparation still landed in the charged lane > - Two killed preparations in one chain then spent the failure budget, and the next interruption could not continue: the task needed a manual Retry > - This pull request lets restart recovery hand a killed preparation to the uncharged lane once the killed controller is proven gone > - The benefit is that a task survives any number of restarts during workspace preparation (up to the crash-loop cap) without a Retry click ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Heartbeat restart recovery: the process-loss reaper in `server/src/services/heartbeat/recovery.ts`. **Problem or motivation** The restart-chaos harness on Daytona with `--storage s3 --storage-trigger snapshot-download` (seed 603, task t02, a codex C1 follow-up) kills the server while a workspace snapshot downloads. On builds that contain #20496, two replays still ended in `R3:retry_needed`. The run chain in replay `w-20261110T061107-s603-replay-t02-1794309789008`: 1. K1 SIGKILL during preparation: `process_lost`, then "Scheduled bounded retry 1/2 … transient_failure". 2. K2 drain during preparation: `interrupted_preparation` 1 (the #20496 path, correct). 3. K4 SIGKILL during preparation: `process_lost`, then "Scheduled bounded retry 2/2 … transient_failure". 4. K2 drain during preparation: the failure budget was spent (`failureRetries` 2), so the hold could not continue. The harness had to click Retry. **Root cause** The reaper does record the no-provider-work certificate (`executionRecovery: { kind: "bootstrap", providerWorkStarted: false }`) for a preparing run from another boot. But before it fails the run, `revokeExpiredLegacyControllerWithState` swaps in a random boot id with a 60 s lease, a tombstone that no controller holds. `scheduleBoundedRetryForRun` then asks `isInterruptedNativePreparation`, whose `preparerMayStillUnwind` check sees that live lease and says the old preparer may still be unwinding. The lane falls back to `transient_failure` and charges the failure budget. Every killed preparation is charged, whether or not its controller is provably gone. **Proposed solution** When the reaper has already proven the old controller's recorded process gone (`legacyControllerGone`, the shared owner prover that #20496 also uses) and the revoked state shows the run was still preparing with no process recorded (`restartInterruptedBeforeDispatch`), expire that tombstone lease in the same `process_lost` write. The lane decision then sees an expired lease and applies its existing checks (no coordinator, result or execution events; leases released with stop receipts; workspace repair when needed). Any evidence of provider work, or a controller that cannot be proven gone, keeps today's charged behaviour. **Alternatives considered** - Revoking with an already expired lease: the 60 s revocation lease fences other servers while this pass fails the run, so the expiry belongs in the terminal write. - Teaching `preparerMayStillUnwind` to ignore unstamped leases: that would also skip the wait for a lease of a live controller saved by an older release. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat/recovery.ts`: the `process_lost` write sets `controllerLeaseExpiresAt` to now when `restartInterruptedBeforeDispatch && legacyControllerGone`. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: - New: a chain whose preparation is killed twice (controllers proven gone) and then drained. Each kill schedules `interrupted_preparation` (attempts 1 and 2, `failureRetries` 0), and after the drain the restart settlement schedules `interrupted_preparation` 3 without a Retry. - New old-saved/new-resumed case: a preparing run saved by an older release without a controller process stamp keeps the charged `transient_failure` lane. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: one additive sentence saying the lane also covers a hard kill once the killed controller is proven gone. ## Verification - Red/green: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "killed twice"` fails on master (the first kill schedules `transient_failure`) and passes with the fix. - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `interrupted-preparation-hold-settle`, `execution-recovery-dead-controller`, `legacy-controller-lease` and `ownership-reconciliation-report` (5 files, 521 tests). - Live (Daytona, `--storage s3 --storage-trigger snapshot-download`, replay of `w-20261110T061107-s603/t02` with K1/K2/K4/K2, image `paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:05a4a092…` whose runner content matches this branch): running; the result will be posted as a comment. ## Risks - Low. The change applies only when the shared owner prover returns `gone` for the exact recorded controller and the run was still preparing with no process recorded. The lease's boot id stays the random revocation id, so the old controller can still never renew it. Old rows without a controller stamp keep today's behaviour. - Previous-release story (upgrade-safe-run-state): no persisted shape changes. A run saved mid-preparation by an older release has no `controllerProcess` stamp, cannot be proven gone, and keeps the charged lane (covered by the new old-saved test). Retries an older release already scheduled in the charged lane keep their counters. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
23fa37f5bb |
fix(recovery): treat a retired prepared remote epoch as nothing to recover (#20491)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A restart must never leave a task stuck: an interrupted run must resume on its own or have a working Retry > - When a graceful restart interrupts a remote-workspace run that is still preparing, the run keeps a `prepared` reference to its workspace epoch, and a preserve-without-replay hold blocks the task > - The unsaved-files reconciler then retires that epoch with `abandonUnverifiedRemoteWorkspaceEpoch` and writes a `paperclip.remote-workspace-abandoned-epoch.v1` receipt. The workspace content is the last committed save again > - Recovery never read that receipt. The held-preparation reconciler waited for a repair receipt that could never exist, and restore recovery refused the source as `source_binding_invalid`. The task stayed blocked, and a UI Retry returned 202 and started nothing > - This pull request adds one strict shared rule: an abandoned-epoch receipt for the run's exact prepared epoch and allocation means there is nothing to recover. Every recovery path now uses it > - The benefit is that the task resumes automatically from the last committed save after the restart, whichever recovery path owns the hold ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20072 (replay a preparation a restart interrupted), #20299 (storage outage waits). **What existing behavior does this improve?** Recovery of a remote-workspace run that a graceful restart interrupted during preparation, after its unsaved epoch was retired. **Subsystem affected** Server: recovery (held-preparation reconciler, workspace restore recovery, the workspace repair check). **Current behavior** These are Daytona R1 restart-chaos waves (Paperclip-sized workspace, `--storage s3`, K2 graceful restart at +110 s, during the ~730 MiB first save): - `w-20261110T052533-s8805` and `w-20261110T062703-s8805` (ST2 slow store), held-preparation path: both runs ended `interrupted` in `executionStage: preparing`. The reference was `{ state: "prepared", epoch: 1 }`, and the workspace had moved to `{ epoch: 2, location: null, dirty: false, writerRunId: null }` with an abandoned-epoch receipt for epoch 1. The `legacy_interrupted_preparation_hold` reconciler never settled the hold (`I2_settled` violations), because `isInterruptedNativePreparation` requires `hasVerifiedWorkspaceRepair`, and that check accepts only a `saved` reference. Grader: `R3:retry_no_new_run`. - `w-20261110T091639-s11936` (ST1 outage), restore-recovery path: the run also had `workspaceRestoreFailure: "restore_failed"` and `workspaceRestoreRecovery`. Restore recovery owns that hold. `inspectWorkspaceRecoverySource` threw `source_binding_invalid` / `workspace_reference_mismatch` with retry class `service_required`, and the hold says Retry "succeeds only after Paperclip is updated". Grader: `R3:retry_no_new_run`. **Proposed behavior** `isAbandonedPreparedRemoteWorkspace(db, run)` is true only when all of these hold: - The run has a `prepared` remote reference and no native workspace sync reference. - The workspace authority is at a later epoch, and the run is not its writer. - The workspace has an abandoned-epoch receipt for the same run, the same epoch, and the same lease, provider lease and remote cwd. That rule is used in three places: - `hasVerifiedWorkspaceRepair` (`workspace-recovery-receipt.ts`): the retired epoch counts as repaired. This covers held-preparation replay, the restore-failure check in `settleInterruptedNativeBootstrap`, the execution blocker, and explicit Retry admission. `verifiedWorkspaceRepairReceipt`, which returns a receipt id, is unchanged. - `inspectWorkspaceRecoverySource` (`workspace-recovery-source.ts`): the retired source is reported as `source_unavailable` / `use_alternative_strategy`, not as a binding failure that needs a service update. - `heldInterruptedPreparationWhere`: a restore-recovery hold is listed for the held-preparation reconciler only when the matching receipt exists (SQL pre-filter). The settle then re-checks the full rule in JS before it acts. **Reason and benefit** The retired epoch held only preparation files: the hold proof requires that no provider work started. Its unsaved files were already given up by the reconciler that wrote the receipt. Waiting for a repair, or for a service update, cannot finish. ## What Changed - New `server/src/services/remote-workspace-abandoned-preparation.ts`: `isAbandonedPreparedRemoteWorkspace` (the strict rule) and `abandonedPreparedRemoteWorkspaceExists` (its SQL pre-filter). - `workspace-recovery-receipt.ts`: `hasVerifiedWorkspaceRepair` also accepts the rule. - `workspace-recovery-source.ts`: a retired prepared source is `source_unavailable` / `use_alternative_strategy`. - `interrupted-preparation-hold-settlement.ts`: restore-recovery holds are listed only with a matching receipt. - `interrupted-preparation-hold-settle.test.ts`: held-preparation replay (before and after the first save committed); a restore-recovery hold in the exact shape saved by the previous build (`restore_failed`, `workspaceRestoreRecovery`, exhausted `source_binding_invalid`) that now settles and replays; inspection reporting `source_unavailable`; and the rule refusing a workspace still at the run's epoch, a run still the writer, a native sync reference, another run's receipt, or another allocation's receipt. Not changed: `run-completion.ts` and the graceful-drain path in `recovery.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/interrupted-preparation-hold-settle.test.ts src/services/task-retry.test.ts`: 101 pass. - Red before: with the three recovery files at master, 4 tests fail (held-preparation replay ×2, the restore-recovery replay, and the inspection result). Green after. - Neighbouring recovery suites: see the comment below. - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit -p tsconfig.json`: pass. - Chaos rerun on a build with this change: see the comment below. ## Risks - Previous-release story (upgrade-safe run state): no persisted shape changes. Holds, run references and receipts written by the previous build are read as they are. The restore-recovery test uses the exact shape the previous build saved. A task already stuck in that state settles on the next reconciler pass after deploy. - The rule needs an exact receipt (run, epoch, lease, provider lease, cwd) and a later workspace epoch, so a real recovery is never skipped. Any mismatch keeps today's behavior. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
dc9971bdb8 |
fix(native): keep another server's orphan sweep off a lease its owner took back (#20508)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A native run holds an executor lease on its `native_run_finalizations` row. #20474 lets the same owner take back its own lease when the lease lapsed only because the host slept. > - That take-back is safe only if every other actor that acts on a lapsed lease records its action under the coordinator row lock first. The plan `doc/plans/2026-11-09-explicit-native-lease-claim-tokens.md` lists the actors that do not. Gap 2 is another server's orphan sweep. > - The sweep reads the lease as lapsed. Later it writes the ownership-unverified marker on the run, without the coordinator lock and without a new check of the lease. If the owner wakes and takes its lease back between the read and the write, a healthy run gets the marker. > - The board then shows "automatic recovery is blocked" on a run that works. After the next host sleep, the owner cannot take its lease back, so the turn is interrupted and the user must click Retry. The owner's rule is that a task interrupted by sleep must resume by itself. > - This pull request makes the sweep write its marker under the coordinator row lock, and only while no executor lease on the run is live. > - The benefit is that exactly one side wins: the sweep marks a run whose owner did not come back, and it leaves alone a run whose owner took its lease back. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20474 **What happened?** Two servers share one database. Server A's host sleeps, so the executor lease of its native run lapses. Server B's orphan sweep reads the lapsed lease. Server A wakes and takes its lease back (#20474). Server B then writes `native_execution_ownership_unverified` on the run that A still owns. **What did you expect?** Server B writes the marker only if the lease is still lapsed when it writes. One side wins. **Steps to reproduce** `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-native-orphan-sweep-lease-race.test.ts` holds the owner's take-back open, runs the real `heartbeatService(db).reapOrphanedRuns()` until its write waits on a lock, then commits the take-back. Before this change the run ends with `errorCode: native_execution_ownership_unverified` and the owner's next take-back fails with `native_session_lease_lost`. ## What Changed - `setRunStatusFromLive` (`server/src/services/heartbeat/run-lifecycle.ts`) has a new option `onlyWhileNativeLeaseLapsed`. It locks the coordinator row first. This is the same order that `lockNativeExecutionLeaseForReacquire` uses. The UPDATE then requires that no executor lease on the run is live. - `markNativeOwnershipUnverified` (`server/src/services/heartbeat/recovery.ts`) takes `leaseLapsed`. The orphan sweep in `recoverActiveExecutions` sets it when it read the lease as lapsed or unset. Other callers do not change. They keep the same call shape. - A new regression test, red before the fix: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-native-orphan-sweep-lease-race.test.ts`. It also checks that the sweep still marks a lapsed run whose owner did not come back, and that the late owner stays fenced out. - `doc/plans/2026-11-09-explicit-native-lease-claim-tokens.md`: gap 2 is marked closed without the epoch design. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-native-orphan-sweep-lease-race.test.ts` — red on `origin/master` (the run keeps the marker), green with this change. - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-native-orphan-sweep-lease-race.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/recovery.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-execution-lease-reacquire.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-status-preserving-telemetry.test.ts` — 129 passed. - `cd server && pnpm exec tsc --noEmit -p tsconfig.json` — clean. - Restart-chaos time-fault wave on this branch: see the wave comment below. ## Risks - Low risk. Only the orphan sweep's marker write changes, and only for a run whose lease it read as lapsed. The sweep now takes the coordinator row lock before the run row. The owner's take-back uses the same order, so the two cannot deadlock. - If the owner took the lease back, the sweep now writes nothing and appends no event. The next sweep sees a live lease and defers, as before. - The other gaps in the plan (workspace finalization, shared-workspace holder detection, board copyback confirmation) do not change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
82abb3ea04 |
fix(native): classify a Codex API-key unknown model as a model rejection (#20488)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runner agents run on a provider (here Codex) with a model the
user saves on the agent
> - When the provider rejects that model, Paperclip should classify the
run as `native_provider_model_rejected`, ask the user to choose a model,
and let Retry finish the task
> - Paperclip recognized only the ChatGPT-account rejection (a 400 JSON
envelope). With API-key auth, Codex returns a different terminal error
for an unknown model
> - So the run failed as a generic `adapter_failed` ("Native session
failed"), and recovery opened a reconciliation incident ("Recovery
needed") for a turn that never did any work
> - This pull request recognizes the real API-key shape, bound to the
configured model, and names the rejected model on the task
> - The benefit is that the task asks for a model choice instead of a
reconciliation, and Retry completes the task after the user picks a
valid model
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The restart-chaos config fault CF3 `model_id` saves a Codex agent with
the model `chaos-missing-model-<nonce>`. The run stays "running" for
about 60 seconds, then fails with `errorCode: adapter_failed`, "Native
session failed". The task shows "Recovery needed", cause
`native_continuation_requires_reconciliation`. The grader fails as
`CF3/model_id:actionable_message` (waves `w-20261110T061914-s206-cf` t01
and `w-20261110T053831-s205-cf` t02).
Root cause: the wave runs Codex with an OpenAI API key. I drove the
bundled `codex app-server` (0.160.0) directly with an unknown model:
- With API-key auth, Codex retries the Responses API 404 ten times
(about 59 s), then fails the turn with `{"message":"unexpected status
404 Not Found: The model \`<id>\` does not exist or you do not have
access to it., url: https://api.openai.com/v1/responses, cf-ray: …,
request id:
req_…","codexErrorInfo":{"httpConnectionFailed":{"httpStatusCode":404}}}`.
- With ChatGPT auth, the turn fails in about 3 s with `message` =
`{"type":"error","status":400,"error":{"type":"invalid_request_error","message":"The
'<id>' model is not supported when using Codex with a ChatGPT
account.","code":"model_not_found"}}`. Paperclip already classified this
one.
`createNativeProviderFailureObservation` parsed only the JSON envelope,
and the runner's provider-failure category for an HTTP 404 is `unknown`.
The terminal therefore stayed unclassified.
**Expected behavior**
The run is `native_provider_model_rejected`, the task shows `userAction:
"choose_model"` and names the model, no reconciliation incident opens,
and Retry completes the task after the user picks a valid model.
**Steps to reproduce**
`node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs
tests/restart-chaos/config-wave.ts --faults CF3 --adapters codex
--references model_id --tasks 1 --concurrency 1 --restarts K2 --seed
206` on `master` (with `OPENAI_API_KEY` set).
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
8a8abdb7b9 |
fix(recovery): retire the ledger row of an abandoned workspace save (#20502)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Remote workspaces save their files to object storage. Each save
writes a row in the `execution_workspace_snapshots` ledger. The row
stays `pending` until the upload publishes it.
> - A restart that kills the server during a save leaves the save
unfinished. The ownership reconciler settles the save operation as
`remote_workspace_save_abandoned`. It does not touch the ledger row.
> - The row then stays `pending` for good, and its `updated_at` never
moves. The `remote_snapshot_ledger` ownership kind has no settle path,
so every later ownership report flags it as an `I2_settled` violation.
> - This pull request retires that row to a terminal state once no retry
can reopen its save, and gives `remote_snapshot_ledger` a settle path.
> - The benefit is a clean ownership report after a restart during a
save, and a ledger that tells the truth about uploads that will never
finish.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A Daytona R1 × K1 restart-chaos wave (`w-20261110T071047-s7101`,
`--storage s3`) killed the server during the initial workspace save of 3
runs. The save operations ended `failed` /
`remote_workspace_save_abandoned`. Their `execution_workspace_snapshots`
rows stayed `pending` permanently, with no object key and no upload
attempt. The workspaces later committed newer snapshots (authority epoch
3, row epoch 1). Every ownership report afterwards flagged 3
`I2_settled` violations of kind `remote_snapshot_ledger`.
**Expected behavior**
When a save is abandoned and its run and writer epoch have ended, its
pending ledger row reaches a terminal state, and the ownership report
shows no `I2_settled` violation for it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a Daytona R1 × K1 wave with `--storage s3` and K1 at about +65 s,
so the restart lands inside the initial remote workspace save.
2. Let the runs finish or fail and the workspace commit a newer
snapshot.
3. Read `execution_workspace_snapshots`: the abandoned rows are still
`pending`. The server log shows `I2_settled` violations for
`remote_snapshot_ledger` on each report.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
a14ae9b5c9 |
fix(workspaces): name a failed workspace setup command on the task page (#20478)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before an agent starts, Paperclip prepares the task workspace and runs the project's configured setup commands (for example the workspace provision command) > - When that command fails, the run fails as `setup_failed`, and the task stops with a Retry > - The task page shows only "Failed" and a generic recovery notice. The real error (the command, its exit status and output) is visible only on the run page > - The user cannot see from the task which setting is broken or what to change > - This pull request records a bounded, named cause for a failed setup command and shows it on the task page > - The benefit is that the task names the broken setting and what to change, and classification, retry and recovery stay the same ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The restart-chaos config fault wave CF1 sets a project `workspaceStrategy.provisionCommand` to `bash ./scripts/provision-worktree.sh`, a script that does not exist. The run fails as `setup_failed` with `Execution workspace provision command "bash ./scripts/provision-worktree.sh" failed: bash: ./scripts/provision-worktree.sh: No such file or directory`. The task page shows "Failed" and "Paperclip automatically retried continuation … still has no live execution path". The grader fails the task as `CF1/provision_command:message_only_in_run_detail`. **Expected behavior** The task page names the failed setup step, the configured command, its exit status and a short tail of its output, and says what to change. Retry behavior stays the same. **Steps to reproduce** `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs tests/restart-chaos/config-wave.ts --faults CF1 --adapters codex --tasks 2 --concurrency 2 --restarts K1,K2 --seed 204` on `master`. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
1e13c58a4e |
fix(heartbeat): name the cause of generic adapter failures and keep SQL text off the board (#20483)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Heartbeat run settlement records why a run failed, and the board shows that record. > - Runs that fail without a named code settle as `adapter_failed` (or `setup_failed`) with no cause. > - A user, an operator, and the restart chaos harness cannot tell what went wrong from such a run. > - Some run errors also show raw SQL statement text to users. > - This pull request records a bounded `failureCause` code for generic failures, shows it on the board, and keeps SQL text out of run errors. > - The benefit is that a generic failure now names its cause, for example "adapter failed (40001)", without leaking messages, SQL, or secrets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20385 (the nested-cause extraction this change reuses). Related: #20421 (restart chaos universal checks U1-U4). **What happened?** The restart chaos audit of 79 saved waves found 30 failed runs with `errorCode: "adapter_failed"` and a null or generic error. Every U3 ("diagnosable") warning was `adapter_failed`. Nobody could tell what failed. Some board run errors also showed raw SQL statement text from wrapped database errors (Drizzle `Failed query: ... params: ...`). **Expected behavior** A run that fails with a generic code names a short, safe cause. The board shows the cause next to the stop reason. Run error text never shows SQL statements or their parameters. **Steps to reproduce** Make an adapter throw a wrapped database error (an `Error` whose nested `cause` has `code: "40001"` and whose message has a Drizzle `Failed query:` statement). Before this change, the run settles as `adapter_failed` with no cause, and `heartbeat_runs.error` contains the SQL statement and parameters. The new tests in `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts` reproduce this. ## What Changed - Runner: move the #20385 event-commit cause extraction into `safeErrorCauseCode` (`packages/paperclip-runner/src/control-plane/safe-error-cause.ts`) and export it. The Runner's own diagnostics use the same function, unchanged in behavior. - Shared: add the `failureCause` contract (`packages/shared/src/run-failure-cause.ts`): one `[A-Za-z0-9_.:-]` token of at most 80 characters, `normalizeRunFailureCause`, `readRunFailureCause`, and `withoutSqlStatementText`. - Server: add `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-failure-cause.ts`. Settlement records `resultJson.failureCause` only when the code is generic (`adapter_failed`, `setup_failed`). `errorCode` stays the same. - Thrown errors (`failRun`, `failRunSetup`): `provider_http_<status>`, else `provider_<category>`, else the first safe code in the error and up to three nested causes (`40001`, `ECONNRESET`), else the error class name, else `unknown_error`. - Adapter results without a code (`completeRun`): the error family, `signal_<name>`, `process_cancellation_failed`, `exit_code_<n>`, `adapter_reported_error`, or `unknown_error`. - The failure log lines (`heartbeat execution failed`, `heartbeat execution setup failed`, and a new `heartbeat run failed` warning for generic adapter results) include `failureCause` and `errorCode`. - Server: replace SQL statement text in run error text with "Database query failed (<cause>)" at all three settlement paths, including the cancelled branch. The execution blocker's `runError`, the attention inbox (failed-run excerpt and metadata), and continuation summaries apply the same replacement on read, so older rows also stop showing SQL there. - Server: Retry admission and failed-preparation replay accept only a closed set of `resultJson` keys. `failureCause` is added to each of those lists (`task-retry.ts`, `chat-channels/failed-run-retry.ts`, `cancelled-native-startup.ts`, `fresh-workspace-continuation.ts`). It is a diagnostic code with no execution or replay authority, so a failed-preparation run stays retryable. - Server: `runsForIssue` returns a validated top-level `failureCause`. It is null for older rows, non-string JSON values, and malformed values. - UI: `RunForIssue.failureCause`; `IssueRunLedger` shows "adapter failed (40001)". Older runs keep "adapter failed". The Storybook run-ledger fixture has a failed run with a cause. - Restart chaos harness: run samples keep `failureCause`. U3 treats a generic code with a specific `failureCause` as diagnosable. A bare `Error`, `unknown_error`, or the no-code fallback `adapter_reported_error` still counts as vague. U3 stays a warning. - Docs: `doc/run-log-events.md` and the harness README describe the field and the SQL replacement. ## Verification - Red before the fix: the four new `run-completion.test.ts` cases failed against `origin/master`'s `run-completion.ts` (no `failureCause`, SQL text in `error`). - Green: - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts`: all tests passed (real embedded PostgreSQL). New cases cover a nested `40001` three levels deep for execution and setup failures, SQL and a secret parameter absent from `error` and `resultJson`, the bound (an 81-character code and a SQL "code" fall back to the class name), `exit_code_137` for a code-less adapter result, a cancelled result with SQL text, no cause for a named code, and the log line. On this loaded host the suite's `afterAll` database teardown hit its 30 s hook limit after every test passed (the known local teardown limit, also seen in #20385). CI runs the suite. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-failure-cause.test.ts` (4), `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts` (recorded, legacy, malformed, overlong, boolean, and number cause projections), `server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts` (legacy SQL row). - `packages/shared/src/run-failure-cause.test.ts` (6), `ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` (21), restart chaos `universal.test.ts` and `observer.test.ts`. - `packages/paperclip-runner/src/control-plane/durable-prp-control-plane.test.ts`: 207 passed (the stall-diagnostic cases still read `40001` and `ECONNRESET`). - Typecheck: shared, runner, server (all layers), UI, restart chaos harness. `pnpm check:token-gates`: all gates clean. - `pnpm verify` returned exit 2 (global doc input changed); required CI supplies broad coverage. - CI on `6295f8d` found that the new key made failed-preparation runs ineligible for Retry (`chat-channels.integration.test.ts` saved board-message Retry got 409; `workspace-recovery-preparation-dispatch.test.ts` dispatched 0 Retries). Both reproduced locally and pass after the allowlist fix, with the other 459 Retry cases in `chat-channels.integration.test.ts` and all 25 in `workspace-recovery-preparation-dispatch.test.ts`. - No chaos waves were run. Storybook was not opened in a browser; the fixture typechecks and the label is covered by the UI test. ## Risks - Low risk. `errorCode` values do not change, so retry, recovery, and comparison logic is unaffected. - No schema change and no migration. `failureCause` is a new optional `resultJson` key. Rows saved by the previous release have no key and render as before; a new row read by an old server is ignored. - The SQL replacement only acts on a Drizzle `Failed query:` marker, or on `$n` placeholder text with a statement shape. Ordinary error text does not change. When it acts, it also drops the text after the statement. - Code that checks `resultJson` against a closed key list must allow `failureCause`. I found and updated the four lists on the Retry path; a list I missed would refuse a Retry for a run with a generic failure. - This is the run log / instance database path. It adds no Telemetry event. - The server failure log line still logs the raw error message (unchanged behavior); only the board-facing text is changed. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file editing) and code execution for tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude
|
233f615644 |
fix(heartbeat): resume legacy runs a graceful shutdown stopped before dispatch (#20461)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The heartbeat service runs agent turns and recovers them after a
server restart
> - A graceful restart can stop a legacy run (for example a `process`
adapter agent) while the run is still in setup, before the adapter
starts
> - That run was parked with `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation`,
so automatic recovery stopped
> - A `process` or `http` adapter cannot continue that hold through
Retry, so the accepted Retry waited forever and the task stayed blocked
> - This pull request proves "no adapter work started" for that case and
resumes the run automatically
> - The benefit is that a restart during setup no longer strands the
task, and Retry starts a run for holds that an older server saved
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The restart-chaos harness ran workload Q3 (a board approves an agent's
app action late) with a `process` adapter agent. A graceful restart
(fault K2) fired right after the approval. The agent's follow-up run was
interrupted with `server_shutdown_interrupted` 0.2 s after it started,
while it was still in setup. Automatic recovery stopped with
`legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation`. The board clicked Retry. The
server accepted the Retry (HTTP 202), but no run started. The task
showed "Retry is waiting for execution checks" (`retryWait.reason =
execution_recovery`) forever.
**Expected behavior**
A run that a graceful shutdown stops before any adapter work must resume
automatically. An accepted Retry must start a run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a `process` adapter agent on a task.
2. Send SIGTERM to the server while the run is still in setup (before
the adapter starts).
3. Restart the server. The task is blocked with
`legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation`.
4. Click Retry. The request is accepted, but no run starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
693de27c90 |
fix(storage): wait out expired or rotated S3 credentials and re-resolve the key (#20456)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - In cloud mode, run logs, provider traces, attachments and remote workspace snapshots go to S3 > - The server uses the default AWS credential chain, and real keys expire or rotate while runs are in flight > - #20299 made runs wait out a storage outage, but a 403 `ExpiredToken`, `InvalidAccessKeyId` or `SignatureDoesNotMatch` was a permanent `adapter_failed` > - The SDK also caches a key until its stated expiration (forever for a key with none), so a rotated key was never picked up > - This pull request treats credential rejections as a storage wait and re-resolves the key from the credential chain after a rejection > - The benefit is that runs survive key expiry and rotation without failed attempts or a manual Retry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20299 (storage outage wait). Harness that found this: #20455. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Runs wait out S3 outages (5xx, timeouts, resets) but fail at once when the store rejects the server's credentials. **Subsystem affected** server storage (S3 provider) and heartbeat run completion. **Current behavior** Restart-chaos wave w-20261110T041556-s501 (`--storage s3 --storage-faults ST5`): one 41 s window of 403 `ExpiredToken` failed 4 of 6 tasks. Each run ended `adapter_failed` with "The provided token has expired.", and the automatic retries failed within one second, so the tasks needed a board Retry (R3 `retry_did_not_complete`). **Proposed behavior** A credential rejection is a transient infrastructure condition. Critical-path storage calls wait it out like an outage, and a run that stops on it gets the `storage_unavailable` wait retry. After each rejection the S3 client re-resolves its key with `forceRefresh`, so the next attempt signs with a rotated key. The run error names the credentials. If they never come back, the exhausted-wait message tells the operator to check the storage service and its credentials. **Reason and benefit** Expiring or rotated keys are normal in cloud deployments. They must not fail work. ## What Changed - `storage-unavailable.ts`: `ExpiredToken`, `ExpiredTokenException`, `TokenRefreshRequired`, `InvalidToken`, `InvalidAccessKeyId`, `InvalidClientTokenId` and `SignatureDoesNotMatch` answered by the store with 400/403 count as storage unavailable. `AccessDenied` and a credential chain that cannot load any key (`CredentialsProviderError`) stay permanent. New credential-specific run message; the exhausted message also names credentials. - `s3-credential-refresh.ts` (new): S3 client middleware that calls the client's credential provider with `forceRefresh` after a rejection, once per credential generation (requests that signed with an already-replaced key do not refresh again), then rethrows so the existing storage wait owns the retry. - `s3-provider.ts`: installs the middleware on both S3 clients. - `run-completion.ts`: uses the credential-aware message. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/storage-s3-credential-rotation.test.ts src/storage/ src/__tests__/storage-outage-wait.test.ts src/__tests__/storage-s3-transient-retry.test.ts src/__tests__/storage-s3-failure-diagnostics.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts` (186 pass). - The new `storage-s3-credential-rotation.test.ts` fails 5 of 6 cases on master (red) and passes with this change (green). It covers a real key rotation through the default credential chain, 403 windows for each code, the message, and `AccessDenied` staying permanent. - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` passes. - `s3-credential-refresh.test.ts`: two parallel requests signed with the old key, rejected 50 ms and 400 ms apart, cause one forced lookup (3 before the generation check, 2 after). - Restart-chaos rerun on a build with this fix and #20455: w-20261110T050044-s503 (`--env local --workloads A1,C1 --faults K1,K2 --tasks 8 --storage s3 --storage-faults ST5,ST5R --storage-fault-seconds 30-90`) passed 8/8 tasks (R1–R6 and T) with a 39 s `ExpiredToken` window and an 85 s real key rotation (76 credential 403s). Before the fix, w-20261110T041556-s501 failed 4/6 tasks. ## Risks - Scope: calls with a Readable body (streamed `putObject`, buffered multipart) cannot be resent, so they still fail on the first rejection, as they do for outages. The middleware has already re-resolved the key, so the caller's next attempt (the run-level wait retry for run work) uses the new key. - A key that the store rejects for good (for example a wrong secret) now waits up to the storage wait budget (5 min in the call, then up to 10 run retries) before the board shows the exhausted message, instead of failing at once. - `forceRefresh` re-runs the credential chain after a rejection. Calls are coalesced, so a burst of rejections causes one refresh. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
8809f44b5e | Connect Codex and Claude login to agent computers (#20417) | ||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
120017e39d |
fix(workspaces): read saved workspace files in place instead of extracting the whole archive (#20442)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When a cloud task finishes, its workspace is saved as an encrypted
snapshot and its sandbox is released. The board's Files view then reads
that saved copy
> - Saved Files access downloaded, decrypted and extracted the whole
archive for every request, and refused archives over 512 MiB with
`too_large`
> - A finished task in a Paperclip-sized repository saves a snapshot of
about 730 MiB, so its files could not be listed or opened at all
> - The archive format already records each file's size and SHA-256, and
the snapshot records the manifest digest, so single files can be read
and verified without the rest of the archive
> - This pull request reads the saved archive in place, one verified
file at a time
> - The benefit is that users can open any file of a large finished
workspace quickly, with bounded memory and no whole-archive transfer
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos waves on Daytona with a real Paperclip clone, the
committed workspace snapshots were 763,944,535 bytes. After the sandbox
was released, every saved Files read returned 422 `too_large` (506 reads
in total), because `createSavedWorkspaceLoader` refuses archives over
`maxArchiveBytes` (512 MiB). The board Files view uses the same loader,
so it fails the same way.
**Expected behavior**
A user can list and open any single file of a saved workspace of
Paperclip-repository size without the server extracting or buffering the
whole archive. Memory and time stay bounded per request, and integrity
is still verified.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a cloud task whose workspace is a large repository, so the final
snapshot exceeds 512 MiB.
2. Let the task finish and its sandbox be released.
3. Open the task's Files view, or call `GET
/api/issues/:id/file-resources/content?workspace=execution&path=…`: it
returns 422 `too_large`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d064bd21e4 |
perf(plugins): pick each lifecycle resource's head in one pass (#20406)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Plugins receive resource lifecycle events (agent, project and agent-runtime changes) through a durable inbox > - The inbox lists an event only when it is the first unacknowledged event of its resource, so each resource delivers in order > - The list query checked that rule with a `NOT EXISTS` for every unacknowledged event. Each check walked the resource's whole acknowledged history > - A resource with a long acknowledged history and a backlog behind a deferred head costs history × backlog probes. On the hosted staging instance three copies of this statement ran for more than 23 minutes each, on a database that was at 6–8 of 8 vCPU all day > - This pull request picks the deliverable head of each resource in one pass > - The benefit is a list call that is linear in the company's events, and database CPU that other requests can use ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** `pluginLifecycleInbox(...).list()` in `server/src/services/plugin-lifecycle-inbox.ts`. The delivery worker calls it in a loop and when it checks for idle work. **Subsystem affected** Plugin lifecycle delivery (server service, PostgreSQL query). **Current behavior** Neon "Active queries" for the staging database on 2026-11-09 showed three copies of this statement at 1,381–1,401 s each. In the same view, trivial primary-key reads waited 100–280 ms. Locally, one resource with 2,000 acknowledged events and a 2,000-event backlog takes 3.5 s for one `list()` call. The cost grows with acknowledged history × backlog. **Proposed behavior** Only the head of a resource is deliverable: its unacknowledged creation if it has one, otherwise its lowest unacknowledged event. This is exactly the set that the old `firstForResource` predicate admits. The query now selects these heads with `DISTINCT ON (resource_type, resource_id)` ordered by `(action <> 'create'), id`, and then applies the page cursor, order and limit. **Reason and benefit** The same fixture lists in 8–24 ms instead of 3.5 s. Long-running copies of this statement no longer hold database CPU that every request needs. **Breaking changes** None. `acknowledge()` keeps its per-event eligibility check. ## What Changed - `pluginLifecycleInbox.list()` uses a `lifecycle_heads` CTE with `DISTINCT ON` to pick one head per resource, then filters by the `afterId` cursor and orders by id with the limit. - New test in `server/src/__tests__/resource-lifecycle-events.test.ts`: one resource with 2,000 acknowledged events and a 2,000-event backlog, plus a second resource. It asserts the exact heads in id order and a list time below 1 s (3.5 s before, 8–24 ms after). ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/resource-lifecycle-events.test.ts -t "acknowledged backlog"` — red on `origin/master` (3,546 ms), green with the change (24 ms, 8 ms). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/resource-lifecycle-events.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-delivery.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-runtime-assignments.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-runtime-hooks.test.ts src/__tests__/project-instance-secrets.test.ts` — the existing ordering, paging, per-plugin isolation, backfilled-creation and late-commit tests pass. (One `agent-runtime-hooks` case is timing-sensitive on a loaded machine and also fails on `origin/master` there. It passed 22/22 on rerun.) - `pnpm verify` selection and CI. - After deploy: Neon "Active queries" no longer shows long-running `resource_lifecycle_events … NOT EXISTS` statements. ## Risks - Low risk. The result set is the same: per resource, the unacknowledged creation, otherwise the lowest unacknowledged id. The cursor still applies after the head is chosen, as before, so paging past failed heads does not skip later events. - Each call still reads the company's events of the requested types once. A company with millions of acknowledged events still pays one linear pass per call. A per-plugin acknowledgment watermark would remove that and is out of scope. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser, code execution). Extended reasoning on. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0991d9bda1 |
fix(workspaces): protect migration sources and add guarded recovery service (#20443)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their task workspaces. > - Online migration saves files before it publishes remote workspace authority. > - A saved migration journal can survive the importing process. > - Git cache expiration did not count that journal as a consumer. > - Expiration could remove a source and change its fingerprint while its import was incomplete. > - This PR protects unfinished imports and exposes a guarded internal service transition for an already affected cohort. > - New imports can preserve the current sources while all old recovery data stays retained. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Git cache expiration could archive and remove a workspace after an import process ended but before its saved cohort finished. The saved source fingerprint then differed from the current archived workspace. Exact cohort resume correctly refused that changed source. Reopening the workspace cannot recreate the old metadata or fingerprint. **Expected behavior** An unfinished migration remains a durable consumer after process loss. If an older server already expired some sources, one canonical transition can fail the exact unpublished cohort without losing its snapshots, objects, source history, or recovery obligations. New attempts use the current verified sources. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a cohort import of eight Git worktrees with local changes. 2. Interrupt it after four snapshot uploads. 3. Let an older server expire two idle source worktrees. 4. Resume the saved cohort. It refuses the changed archived sources. Related: #20429 preserves exact cohort identity when independent companion imports change only the scope proof. #20424 preserves prepared recovery state for archived sources. This PR handles completed source expiration, not a scope-only change. Public searches found related expiration work and no matching compensation owner. ## What Changed - Count saved migration markers and unfinished migration journals as Git expiration consumers. Keep failed migration retention holds as consumers too. - Expose `supersedeExpiredRemoteWorkspaceMigrationCohort` as an internal service API for a privileged operator with a real database handle and reviewed company/cohort inputs. It is called directly by the PostgreSQL/Git test and reviewed one-time administrative qualification. It adds no CLI mode or HTTP route. The existing CLI still refuses a damaged cohort; this PR does not claim automatic CLI recovery. - Require an exact unpublished cohort of up to eight members. It requires completed expiration and an unexpired restore recipe for each missing member. The other members must retain their saved source fingerprints. - Recheck current source and recovery state under source, lifecycle, finalizer, and row locks. One transaction fails all old journals, writes audit records, and removes only their exact matched active markers. - Keep old cohort proofs, operations, snapshots, and object references. Genuine failure receipts use the existing failed-save retention hold. This transition does not report migration success. - Reuse the existing bounded source-lock queue when `sourceLockWaitMs` is set. Keep fast refusal by default. Cancellation targets only this waiter, and current checks still run after admission. - Record predecessor IDs on new attempts and reserve a snapshot generation above the existing ledger maximum. New success does not retire the old hold. - Document the owning transition and retention rules. ## Verification - The two new journal-consumer cases failed under the old expiration predicate and passed under the new predicate. - The full new recovery case passed in 21.12 seconds with real PostgreSQL locks, Git repositories, encrypted local object storage, and archive restores. It covers four retained uploads, two real expirations, unchanged old resume refusal, authority change refusal, transaction rollback, a held native finalizer, idempotence, eight new imports, dirty/untracked file restores, and a retention pass 30 days later with no object deletion. - Server TypeScript and module-boundary checks passed. - On `7cec8c915acfad2d08874eaf26abaa852f560219`, the queued-admission regression failed before forwarding the option (24.07 seconds), then passed (22.25 seconds). It verifies a real held project lock, cancellation that preserves the holder and all journals, release into full compensation, retention, and eight restored fresh imports. Current server TypeScript and module/diff checks passed. The only production follow-up changes are the optional queue input and its existing-owner call. - The earlier `737a0df3a71b10fe48d7bbfe7ffd8ae296b4852c` CI run had one Runner support failure: the unchanged credential-free Python/Pi calibration exceeded its outer 25-second subprocess deadline. That job passed 6,926 other tests and skipped four. The timeout is retained as a nonpass. The changed logical head requires fresh CI and review; no test deadline was raised. - The affected cohort, Git expiration, and eligibility suites passed all 148 cases in 228.41 seconds on `aa589f3f447e36d0277c32f8b44cbe5e84a673be`. Merged current master `a9d0946e64`; the only conflict retained both independent added test blocks. The complete merged cohort suite passed all 30 cases in 70.00 seconds on `737a0df3a71b10fe48d7bbfe7ffd8ae296b4852c`, including upstream larger-cohort controls. Final-head server TypeScript, incremental preflight, module-boundary, and diff checks passed. Unchanged expiration/eligibility evidence remains valid. Fresh `809ab704e619812d8f1bf38cf5de9c65893861cc` CI and review are pending. - On `809ab704e619812d8f1bf38cf5de9c65893861cc`, the complete recovery fixture passed in 21.38 seconds after adding one valid archived recipe with no restore point. It refuses with `migration_supersession_expiration_unverified` and keeps all workspaces, journals, and snapshots unchanged. The same case then verifies queue cancellation/release, full compensation, retained history, fresh imports, and restored bytes. Server TypeScript passed. This follow-up changes only the test and service-scope documentation; product bytes remain identical to qualified `7cec8c915acfad2d08874eaf26abaa852f560219`. - Earlier fixture attempts did not pass. They exposed the selection of a held source and an incorrect expected refusal string. The fixture now selects eligible sources and asserts the canonical authority refusal. Production guards were not relaxed. - Live qualification of the exact owning product bytes completed in 230.419 seconds. All eight old operations became failed with auditable supersession lineage. All eight old snapshot rows remained byte-for-byte identical, and their object references remain retained. The existing source-lock queue waited 1.151 seconds for a normal finalizer handoff. The three complete source/recovery passes took about 218 seconds including their transaction, which explains why the earlier 180-second total budget was insufficient for that measured workload. No source proof or publication guard was skipped. Compensation made no provider or object-storage calls. - Earlier live qualifications remain nonpasses: the 180-second attempt did not finish; its instrumented successor completed source checks and refused a busy source lock before mutation. The successful bounded-queue attempt retained those failure records. Fresh archived/online imports are a separate subsequent step and are not claimed complete here. - The local checks do not claim browser acceptance, app deployment, fleet enrollment, or a completed zero-downtime cutover. ## Risks - This owner mutates migration bookkeeping. It preserves all-or-nothing row comparisons and current source/recovery locks. A changed journal, authority, writer, finalizer, expired recipe, or partial transaction refuses the transition. - Historical snapshots and objects remain pinned after new success. This intentionally retains storage. Release requires a separate reviewed action. - An older importer cannot use the successor generation contract. Use the containing canonical owner for recovery. Normal app delivery must also carry the expiration guard; a private maintenance graph does not patch a running server's cleanup worker. - The migration owner crosses 1,000 lines. The bounded compensation transition remains beside its private source inspection, fingerprint, fence, reservation, and publication contracts. Moving it now would require exporting or duplicating those safety owners. No unrelated refactor or new framework is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source editing, Git, and local execution tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5bad074baa |
feat: add individual agent interaction permissions (#20411)
Add eleven sparse incoming and outgoing restrictions, human CLI/API administration, shared mutation enforcement, and pending-delivery checks. Preserve existing defaults, agent settings, and existing authorization boundaries. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
99a6daf5bc |
perf(auth): resolve a Cloud tenant actor in one database round trip (#20390)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - On Paperclip Cloud, each request resolves its board actor from trusted Cloud headers in `actorMiddleware` > - This runs for every request after the liveness probe, also for static files such as `favicon.ico` and `index.html` > - The resolution ran three database statements one after another: the stale `instance_admin` purge, the membership read and the owner-elevation read > - On a loaded database, each statement waits. Three sequential waits make every request slow, also a request that needs no data > - This pull request keeps the purge and the tenant sync in order and runs the two reads at the same time as them > - The benefit is one database wait per request instead of three ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Cloud tenant actor resolution in `server/src/middleware/auth.ts` (`resolveCloudTenantActorOnce`). **Subsystem affected** Server authentication middleware (Cloud trusted-header path). **Current behavior** Measured on the hosted staging instance on 2026-11-09 from a signed-in browser, 45 paired samples in 40 s: - `/api/liveness` (mounted before actor resolution): client median 92 ms, p90 255 ms, server time ≤ 1 ms. - `/favicon.ico` with a session (after actor resolution): client median 413 ms, p90 1,751 ms, max 4.6 s. - `/api/cli-auth/me`: server median 346 ms, p90 1,528 ms. The same Node process answers liveness quickly, so the event loop is not blocked. The database is busy (6–8 of 8 vCPU for the whole day), and trivial primary-key reads waited 100–280 ms each. Three sequential reads explain the ~320 ms median gap between liveness and favicon. **Proposed behavior** The purge and the debounced tenant sync stay ordered. The membership read and the owner-elevation read run at the same time as them. The sync writes only the primary company's membership, and the membership read excludes that company, so the result does not change. **Reason and benefit** A synced request costs one database wait instead of three. With 150 ms of injected database latency, a synced resolution goes from 914 ms to 310 ms (3 runs each, same machine). **Breaking changes** None. ## What Changed - `resolveCloudTenantActorOnce` starts the purge-and-sync, the additional-membership read and `resolveOwnerInstanceAdmin` together and awaits them with `Promise.all`. A membership read failure still degrades to the primary company. The owner-elevation read still fails closed. - New regression test `server/src/__tests__/cloud-tenant-actor-round-trips.test.ts`. It connects through a TCP proxy that delays every client write by 150 ms and asserts that a synced resolution finishes in less than 4 × the delay. Before the change it takes about 6 × (914 ms); after the change about 2 × (310 ms). - `auth-session-route.test.ts`: the fake database binds each `returning()` to its own insert, and the test matches inserts by content instead of position, because the instance-settings insert can now happen in parallel with the tenant sync. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/cloud-tenant-actor-round-trips.test.ts` — red on `origin/master` (914 ms, 913 ms, 916 ms), green with the change (310 ms). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/cloud-tenant-company-provisioning.test.ts src/__tests__/auth-session-route.test.ts src/__tests__/liveness.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-warm-standby.test.ts src/middleware/cloud-tenant-actor.test.ts` - `pnpm verify` (selected tests), and CI. - After deploy: compare `/favicon.ico` and `/api/cli-auth/me` client time with `/api/liveness` on staging. Expect the median gap to drop from about 3 database waits to about 1. ## Risks - Low risk. Authorization does not change: the same statements run and the request waits for all of them before it continues. - Each request now uses up to three pooled connections at the same time instead of one. The staging pool limit is 500, so this is not a concern there. Smaller pools reach their limit sooner under a burst. - The diff re-indents the purge-and-sync block. The statements in it do not change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser, code execution). Extended reasoning on. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1ca3e8ea2a |
fix(native): let a resume claimed after a restart write the run's existing log (#20427)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a native run is interrupted, Paperclip can persist a same-run resume: a later attempt continues the same run from its exact checkpoint > - If the server restarts before that resume is dispatched, the new server process claims it. The resume then reopens the run's existing log, and only the current controller may write it > - The resume claim took the lease owner but left the dead process's controller identity on the lease. The log writer check compares the boot id, so it refused, and the exact checkpoint resume failed as `run_log_writer_authority_lost` > - This pull request stamps the claiming process's identity on the resume claim, as restart recovery's own claim already does > - The benefit is that a resume persisted before a restart continues after it, instead of failing and needing a manual Retry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Storage chaos wave `w-20261110T003423-s9903` (local ST2, seed 9903), task t01 (codex C1, K1). The wave went 7/8; t01 was the one task that needed a Retry. - Run 279772b3 was SIGKILLed during its first turn. The restarted server resumed it, and the Codex snapshot failed ("cannot safely recover an ambiguous Codex turn start"). A same-run resume was persisted. - A second SIGKILL hit (00:35:37), and the next process dispatched the scheduled resume at 00:35:56. - The resume's run-log claim failed in `createRunLogWriterAuthority`: the coordinator lease still carried the killed process's `controllerBootId`. The exact checkpoint resume was refused (`run_log_writer_authority_lost`), and the run ended `adapter_failed`, needing a Retry. The wave had S3 latency injected, but the failure does not depend on it. The new test reproduces it on master with no storage faults. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-finalization-reconciler.ts`: `dispatchNativeSessionResumptions` writes the claiming process's controller identity (boot id, pid, host hash, process start) along with its lease owner and expiry. This matches the restart-recovery claim, so ownership proofs and the run-log writer check see the process that actually owns the resume. - `server/src/__tests__/native-session-resumption.test.ts`: a regression test for this case. ## Verification - `native-session-resumption.test.ts`: - A coordinator persisted for resume by a previous process (stale boot id), on a run with an existing object-store log, is dispatched. - The run-log writer check accepts the new claim, and the lease carries this process's identity. - The test fails on master with `run_log_writer_authority_lost`. - Regression: the native resumption, binding, recovery-deadline, restart-recovery, scheduled-resume, owner-release, runner-ownership and recovery suites pass locally. `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server`. ## Risks - The resume claim now also refreshes the controller pid, host hash and process start on the coordinator row. These describe the process that owns the lease, exactly as after a restart-recovery claim. A claim by the same process writes the same values as before. - No schema migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
3a5572c9e5 |
Extend login PTY contracts for existing computers (#20410)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent execution across environments.
> - Environment providers own execution resources.
> - Codex and Claude already share the login PTY transport.
> - A login on an existing computer needs its own allocation and
deadline.
> - Input retries must retain their identity.
> - Codex also needs a fixed credential-file read; Claude already
returns its token through PTY output.
> - This change extends the shared contract and keeps both existing
provider parsers.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem**
The existing login contract assumes a temporary sandbox. It cannot
describe a login allocation on an existing computer or export its fixed
credential result without generic execution.
**Proposed solution**
Add shared allocation purpose, command identity, PTY deadline, and input
identity fields for both Codex and Claude. Add one optional
credential-result hook for Codex's auth.json file.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate Claude login implementation would duplicate the current
setup-token parser and owner-bound credential writer. Claude continues
to use that existing path. The new artifact hook is Codex-specific
because Claude's setup-token result comes through the existing shared
PTY output stream.
## What Changed
- Export the login contract types from the main SDK entry point.
- Forward login purpose and command through plugin allocation and retain
them in lease metadata.
- Forward the PTY deadline and give each input write a stable identity.
- End a login route when the worker cannot confirm input delivery.
- Preserve the opening company scope for input, stop, and close
callbacks.
- Advertise and dispatch the optional fixed Codex credential-result
hook.
The allocation, deadline, input, output, and cleanup contracts serve
both providers. This PR does not enable either provider on an existing
computer. The dependent consumer PR connects admission, services,
credential completion, and UI for both providers.
## Verification
- Close-ordering regression: all 91 host worker-manager tests passed,
including concurrent close callers waiting behind a held plugin
acknowledgement after input failure. Server TypeScript check passed. All
current CI gates, ordinary review, and the selected follow-up review
pass on
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
347d85fef3 |
perf(chat): index GitHub review lookups and share review-wait reads (#20400)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub chat endpoints let agents review pull requests. The server reads review state when it lists issues and when it updates GitHub checks. > - On a hosted instance, two GitHub review queries used the most total database time. One query ran about 660,000 times at about 33 ms. The other query ran about 10,000 times at about 1 s. > - The first query finds a source comment's chat link. No index covers `chat_message_links.comment_id`, so each call reads the full table. Issue lists also read the same review waits two times per request. > - The second query joins deliveries, links and runs on a JSON key. The planner walks the agent's run history in creation order and reads each run's context. > - This pull request adds four concurrent indexes, splits the run lookup into two small reads, and shares review-wait reads in one issue-list request. > - The benefit is less background database load, so request reads wait less. The results stay the same. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** GitHub review state reads. These are the inherited review-wait lookup by source comment, and the review-check lookup of the run that a delivery's comment woke. **Subsystem affected** Server chat channels (GitHub review waits and checks), issue list attention maps, and the database schema. **Current behavior** - `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` filters `chat_message_links` by `company_id`, `comment_id` and `direction`. No index has `comment_id`, so PostgreSQL reads the full table on each call. The run-origin check does the same lookup first. - An issue list calls the external review-wait read from the review attention map and again from the blocked-inbox attention map. The two maps read the same in-review issues. - `githubReviewCheckState` joins deliveries, links and runs with `context_snapshot->>'wakeCommentId' = comment_id::text`, sorts by `created_at desc` and takes one row. The planner reads the agent's runs in creation order and reads each run context. If no run matches yet, it reads all of them. The delivery filter on `normalized_event` and the link join on `delivery_id` also have no index. **Proposed behavior** The same rows come back from small index reads. Each issue's review wait is read one time per issue-list request. **Reason and benefit** These two statement families used about 33,000 s of database time in one cumulative statistics window. The database had about 50 concurrent active queries, and request reads waited behind this background work. **Breaking changes** None. The migration adds indexes only. ## What Changed - Migration `0456_chat_review_lookup_indexes` builds four indexes with `CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY IF NOT EXISTS`. It runs through the existing top-level statement path, which repairs an invalid index on retry: - `chat_message_links_company_comment_idx` on `(company_id, comment_id)` where `comment_id is not null`. - `chat_message_links_delivery_idx` on `(delivery_id)` where `delivery_id is not null`. - `chat_deliveries_github_automatic_delivery_idx` on `(endpoint_id, normalized_event->'githubAutomatic'->'context'->>'deliveryId')` where that value is not null. - `heartbeat_runs_company_wake_comment_idx` on `(company_id, context_snapshot->>'wakeCommentId')`. This index is not partial. The planner does not use expression statistics from a partial index. Without these statistics, it estimates many matches and keeps the creation-order walk. - `githubReviewCheckState` reads the delivery's comment IDs first. If there is a comment, it reads the newest same-agent run with one of these `wakeCommentId` values. If there is no comment, it skips the run read. The comparison stays text equality on `comment_id::text`. - `createExternalReviewWaitReader` shares one read per issue between the review and blocked-inbox attention maps of one issue-list request. The reader exists only for that request. - `doc/DATABASE.md` describes the indexes and the new read order. - `scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-indexes.ts` compares the pre-fix and new code with and without the indexes. `scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-index-migration.ts` times the migration on a large synthetic database. ## Verification Local SQL measurements on a synthetic fixture. They are not production timings. Environment: embedded PostgreSQL 18.1, baseline revision `02bfe71a6b`. Fixture: 50,000 links, 5,000 deliveries with about 2 KiB events, and 4,000 runs with about 12 KiB incompressible contexts. The wake run is in the middle of the run history. Each value is the median server execution time from `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` (2 warmups, 9 samples). The order was: no indexes, indexes, then no indexes again. | Caller and statement | Before (no indexes, two passes) | After | Shared buffers before → after | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Inherited review wait, link by source comment (same SQL) | 2.72 / 2.36 ms | 0.076 ms | 929 → 12 | | Review check, wake run found | 31.9 / 21.9 ms | 0.29 ms (two statements) | 25,776 → 62 | | Review check, no wake run yet | 71.0 / 47.5 ms | 0.06 ms (two statements) | 34,861 → 12 | - Indexes alone do not fix the review check. The old SQL with the new indexes took 8.6 ms (run found) and 29.7 ms (no run), because it still walked the run history. The new SQL without the new indexes was neutral (23.5 and 35.1 ms). - Service wall times on this shared machine were noisy, so the table reports server execution time. - Correctness: the benchmark fails unless the inherited statement returns the same positional rows in each index state. The check service result and the final wake-run rows of the new code must also match the pre-fix module for both cases. - Migration timing, normal migration runner, synthetic data: 200,000 runs (1.8 GB with 8 KiB incompressible contexts), 500,000 links and 100,000 deliveries. First run 4.2 s; rerun 0.38 s. Separate builds: links by comment 1.5 s, run wake comment 1.1 s, deliveries 0.7 s, links by delivery 0.3 s. All indexes were valid. The run index was 8.3 MB. - New tests: - `server/src/__tests__/github-review-check-state.test.ts` checks that the newest same-agent run is selected. It also checks that other agents, other companies, uppercase IDs, non-string values, list-only `wakeCommentIds`, comment-less links and unknown deliveries do not match. It checks that the generated statements can use the new indexes. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/external-review-wait.test.ts` checks that the reader reads each issue one time, keeps concurrent callers correct, and rejects all waiting callers when a read fails. - Red/green: with the pre-fix `review-check-state.ts`, the behavior test passes and the index test fails. With this change, both pass. - Focused runs pass: `issue-blocker-attention`, `heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation`, review-wait, review-check-state, external-review-wait, review-repair (106 tests), and `external-chat-wait.integration` (285 tests). `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` pass. Commands: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-indexes.ts --baseline-ref=02bfe71a6b pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-index-migration.ts ``` ## Risks - The migration builds four indexes concurrently. It does not block writes. On a large database, the run index reads every run context one time. The local run took 1.1 s for 1.8 GB from a warm cache. Cold storage on smaller compute can be slower. - The run index adds one entry for each run insert and for each run update that is not a heap-only update. Many runs have no `wakeCommentId`, so these entries hold a null key. - The review check now sends two statements instead of one when a delivery has a comment. Each statement reads only a few index entries. - When two matching runs have the same `created_at`, either can be selected. The previous query had the same tie behavior. - This change does not change the number of in-review issues that one issue list reads. The blocked-inbox map still reads all in-review issues of the company. A smaller scope needs a separate change to the liveness classifier. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) by Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local PostgreSQL benchmarks). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
326df52673 |
perf(api): rank Mine inbox candidates from the participation set (#20413)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Mine inbox reads `GET /api/companies/:companyId/inbox/mine`. Its
main query is `issueService.list` with "touched by me", "not archived by
me", six statuses including `done`, and `LIMIT 100` by canonical last
activity.
> - That query evaluates `touchedByUserCondition` (a five-way OR of
EXISTS) on every status-matching issue in the company. Because `done` is
included, the scan grows with company history, not with the user's work.
> - The unread badge already solved the same problem with a UNION of
indexed participation sources (#17973). The list path did not.
> - This pull request makes the Mine list rank page ids from that same
participation UNION, then load full rows (with the expensive select-list
subqueries) only for the 100 selected ids.
> - The benefit is that the main Mine query scales with the user's
participation instead of the company's issue count. Results stay
identical, and a new test proves it against the original scan.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The latency of the Mine inbox snapshot, `GET
/api/companies/:companyId/inbox/mine`.
**Subsystem affected**
Server: issue list service (`server/src/services/issues.ts`) and the
Mine route.
**Current behavior**
Measured on 2026-11-09: 280–570 ms server time on a dev instance and
1.9–3.2 s on staging. The list query scans every status-matching issue
(28k of 30k in the fixture below) to test participation, then sorts the
touched ones.
**Proposed behavior**
The list query reads only the user's participation set and computes the
row projection only for the page.
**Reason and benefit**
Inbox opens are frequent. The old cost grows with every completed task
in the company.
Refs #17973 (same UNION for the unread badge).
## What Changed
- Extracted the participation UNION from `unreadInboxIssueIds` into
`mineParticipationIssueIds()`. The unread badge uses it unchanged.
- New `IssueFilters.touchedCandidates: "participation"`. When it is set
with `touchedByUserId` (and there is no search and no
`oneChildPerParent`), `list`:
1. replaces `touchedByUserCondition` with `issues.id IN (<participation
UNION>)`. Each UNION member is one OR branch of the old condition, so
the set is the same;
2. runs a narrow `candidates` query (`SELECT id … WHERE <all other
filters> ORDER BY <same order> LIMIT/OFFSET`);
3. loads the full projection for only those ids (re-checking company,
visibility and the read condition), and restores the phase 1 order.
- Only the Mine route sets the flag. Every other `svc.list` caller keeps
the old SQL.
- A new Server-Timing phase, `inbox_issues_candidates`.
- `server/src/__tests__/inbox-mine-candidates.test.ts`: a
result-equivalence test.
- `scripts/benchmark-inbox-mine.ts`: a local benchmark that seeds a
large fixture, compares full payloads, and records `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE,
BUFFERS)` per query.
### Not changed, with evidence
- **Recomputed comment/activity maxima** (`lastActivityStatsForIssues`):
0.9 + 0.2 ms per call in the plans. Not worth a second code path.
- **Touched condition inside `userCommentStatsForIssues`**: 1.4–2.1 ms.
Not changed.
- **`liveDescendantCountMapForIssues`**: 12 ms at 30k issues and 40 ms
at 90k. It now costs about as much as the list query. It scans all live
runs and hashes all company issues. It is company-wide work, outside the
candidate selection, so I left it for a separate change.
## Verification
### Correctness
`inbox-mine-candidates.test.ts` runs the old scan and the new path on
the same data. It asserts equal ordered ids and equal full JSON
payloads. Fixture: 170+ touched issues (more than one page, with tied
timestamps) plus these edge cases:
- included: created by me, assigned to me only, user activity, my direct
comment, `done`, pending request addressed to me, archived then
re-activated by a newer outside comment, read state with a later agent
comment, a live child (live descendant count);
- excluded: archived with no newer activity, mention-only, read audit
only (`issue.read_marked`), uppercase entity id, channel-sourced
comment, agent-created with my user id, `cancelled`, hidden, harness,
plugin operation, private to another user (`issueReadSqlCondition`),
answered request, untouched issues, another company.
It also compares other shapes: no archive filter, `status=done` with the
full projection, `offset`/`limit`, ascending order, unrestricted read
condition, a second user, and a user with no participation. Mutation
check: removing the comment source from the UNION makes the test fail.
The benchmark also asserts identical full payloads for every sample of
both arms.
Focused suites (local): `inbox-mine-candidates`, `inbox-mine-routes`,
`authorization-privacy-query`, `issues-unread-inbox`,
`inbox-archive-routes`, `issues-assignee-unread`,
`issues-creation-visibility` — all pass.
### Performance (local SQL measurements)
Command: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx
../scripts/benchmark-inbox-mine.ts --baseline-ref=18c3f4ef7b
--issues=<N> [--touch-density=<d>]`. Baseline =
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4a2eb920cf |
fix(storage): wait out a store outage on a run's critical path instead of failing it (#20299)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A cloud instance keeps run logs and evidence in object storage, so a run touches the store as soon as it starts > - In storage chaos wave `w-20261109T145628-s9902` (ST1: 75–176 s windows where every S3 call returns 503), only 1 of 8 tasks finished. A run starting or resuming during an outage failed within a second as `adapter_failed`, generic recovery burned its attempts seconds apart, the task was escalated to the board, and the user saw the raw S3 error > - This pull request treats a transient storage error as an infrastructure wait: the run is retried on a minute-scale schedule, rapid recovery is suppressed, the board shows it as working, and the run error says storage was unavailable > - The benefit is that a store outage of several minutes delays work instead of failing and stranding it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Storage chaos wave `w-20261109T145628-s9902` (master `610b54f551`, `--storage s3`, ST1). **Where the run fails.** At run start or resume, `run-output` `begin` opens the run log: `getRunLogStore().begin` → object run log store → object byte journal `claim` → S3 conditional PUT. The journal retries only 3 times within about 300 ms, so a 503 escapes and fails the run as `adapter_failed`. The async stack ends in the SDK middleware with no app frame. `log_store` stays null on the failed run, which pins the claim. **What followed.** - `failRun` released the issue into generic immediate recovery. Recovery retried 1–2 s apart inside the outage (t01: 14:58:33, :35, :59, 14:59:01), then stopped and opened a board-owned `stranded_assigned_issue` action. These are the open recovery actions on CHA-1, CHA-4, CHA-7 and CHA-8; a later Retry hit the outage again and escalated the same way. - The run error was the raw S3 text ("Injected storage outage"). **Slow store (ST2, `w-20261109T151946-s9903`).** With about 9.7 s of added latency per call, the same claim hit the journal's 15 s per-operation deadline (`AbortSignal.timeout(15_000)`). The run failed after about 36 s with `AbortError: Request aborted` and burned 3 runs the same way; 4 of 8 tasks needed a Retry. t02/t03 (Retry parked with `process_identity_missing`) are a separate native-recovery class and are handled in a follow-up. **Daytona storage chaos ST1 (`w-20261109T161202-s9912`, 1/8):** with S3 returning 503 for 72 to 154 s at a time: - Workspace restore failed at once (`remote_workspace_restore_failed: step=snapshot_download; storage=provider_error`), three times in 40 s, then `setup_failed`. It left an active recovery action behind. - Runs reattached after a restart died within 2 s on the run-log claim, then became reconciliation-required. - Setup failed on other storage reads. - 6 of 7 failures needed a UI Retry. So the rule here is one class rule: a transient store error on a run's critical path waits, it never fails the run. ## What Changed - New `server/src/storage/storage-unavailable.ts`: - `isStorageUnavailableError` reads the recorded storage failure diagnostics first, then the SDK error shape. Unavailable means 429/500/502/503/504, the S3 throttling and timeout names, network codes (`ECONNRESET`, `ECONNREFUSED`, `ETIMEDOUT`, `EPIPE`, `EAI_AGAIN`, `ENOTFOUND`), or an `AbortError` whose cause is a `TimeoutError` (a per-operation deadline). 403, 404 and 412 are not outages, and neither is an abort caused by the run's own Stop. - It defines the `storage_unavailable` code, the `storage_unavailable_wait` retry reason, the retry policy (60 s × 10 attempts, about 10 minutes) and the user-facing message. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.ts`: - `failRun` classifies such a failure as `storage_unavailable` with the plain message. - Unless native recovery owns the run, it schedules the storage wait with `scheduleBoundedRetryForRun`, skips the interaction-continuation retry, and releases the issue with `suppressImmediateRecovery`. - `failRunSetup` uses the same policy for this code. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/retries.ts`: `storage_unavailable` joins the transient infrastructure codes. It gets its own retry budget and policy, like `runner_revision_mismatch`. - `server/src/services/task-interruption-presentation.ts`: `storage_unavailable_wait` is a resource wait, so the board shows the task as working with no Retry while it waits. - **One shared outage wait for the run's critical path** (`server/src/storage/storage-unavailable.ts`): - `retryThroughStorageOutage` retries a transient store failure with backoff (2 s doubling to 30 s) until that storage operation's outage has lasted 5 minutes, then gives the error back. The outermost wait of an operation records its first failure, and nested and parallel waits inside it share that start; no other request's success extends it. Shared probes and shared reads run under their own scope, so one run's Stop never cancels work another run waits on. A stop signal ends the wait, and non-outage errors are never retried. - Inside `waitOutStorageOutages`, every replayable S3 request waits instead of failing: get, head, delete, buffered and file puts, and multipart create, file parts and complete. A consumed upload stream is never resent, and requests outside the scope keep failing fast. - The scope covers run execution (`heartbeat.ts` `executeRun`: setup, workspace restore, run-log claim and the run itself), plus `loadWorkspaceSnapshotArchive` and `uploadWorkspaceSnapshot`, which copy-back and recovery workers use too. - The run-log claim retries as a whole, because the journal bounds each operation with a 15 s deadline. - Past the budget, the run takes the bounded `storage_unavailable` wait below. - The classifier follows the error's `cause` chain, so a restore failure wrapping an outage counts. `failRunSetup` checks storage before restore failures, so that case takes the storage wait instead of two quick retries and an escalation (the R6 leak). - `object-byte-journal.ts`: when its deadline expires, the journal rethrows the recorded storage error instead of a bare `TimeoutError`. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `run-completion.test.ts` "waits a minute and suppresses rapid recovery when a run fails because storage is unavailable (storage chaos ST1)". An S3-shaped 503 records `storage_unavailable` with the plain message (no raw S3 text), schedules `STORAGE_UNAVAILABLE_RETRY`, releases with `suppressImmediateRecovery: true`, and skips the continuation retry. "keeps an ordinary adapter failure on the normal recovery path" guards the default. - `task-interruption-query.test.ts` "does not present an overdue storage_unavailable_wait wait as a failed attempt": working, `canRetry: false`. - `storage-unavailable.test.ts`: which errors count as an outage and which do not, including recorded diagnostics, a deadline-aborted call (ST2), and a Stop-aborted call that must not count. Static checks: - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server`. Live verification: Phase 3 will rerun ST1 (seed 9902) with the MinIO fault proxy after merge. - `server/src/__tests__/storage-outage-wait.test.ts` runs against a local S3 that answers 503 for 3 s: - Inside the scope, a snapshot `getObject` and a run-log conditional PUT succeed once the store is back. - Outside it, a request fails fast. - A stop ends the wait. - Unit cases cover the budget, non-outage errors, and a `RemoteWorkspaceRestoreError` wrapping an outage. - `run-completion.test.ts`: a setup failure from a restore that wrapped an outage takes the storage wait (red before). - `object-byte-journal.test.ts`: a real `claim` whose head PUT hits its deadline is classified as a storage outage (red before). ## Risks - A storage outage now holds a task for up to about 10 minutes of automatic waits instead of escalating within seconds. A longer outage still ends in the existing board recovery. - A run whose failure is misclassified as storage-unavailable waits instead of using fast recovery. The classifier accepts only server-side or network failures from the storage SDK, never 4xx answers. - No schema change. - A run can now wait until a storage outage has lasted 5 minutes before it fails over to the bounded wait. It shows as working throughout, and Stop ends the wait. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ab80fea62f |
perf(recovery): probe run bindings per comment in the lost-wake check (#20412)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The ownership reconciler finds user comments whose wake a restart lost, and it saves a wake for them (plan invariant 4) > - Its lost-wake check matched a task's runs with one OR across the legacy context ID and the native issue column > - With that OR, PostgreSQL can join runs only by company. It then tests each recent comment against every run of its company and reads each run's context > - On a hosted staging database, this statement used about 23 s per call on average (384 calls, about 8,900 s in total). One call ran for 35 s. Other requests waited behind it > - This pull request reads the check in three stages and probes the two run bindings separately with existing indexes > - The benefit is the same result with bounded, index-driven work for each recent comment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The reconciler's user-comment lost-wake check was one of the most expensive statements on a hosted staging database. Query statistics showed 384 calls with a mean of about 23 s. One active call was seen at 35 s. The database compute was busy, and short authentication reads waited behind long statements. The statement matched runs with `(context_snapshot->>'issueId' = issue OR native_issue_id = issue)` in three subqueries. The OR gives PostgreSQL no join key except `company_id`. A local plan on synthetic data showed the cost: a hash join of 273 comments against all 38,002 runs, which took 1.0 s of a 1.3 s statement. The work grows with recent comments multiplied by the company's run count, and each test reads a run context. **Expected behavior** Each recent comment uses a small number of indexed probes. The check returns the same comments in the same order, with the same limit and grace logic. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seed a company with a deep run history and a few hundred recent user comments. 2. Let some recent comments have no wake (for example, after a restart lost the wake of a steered comment). 3. Run the check. PostgreSQL can pick a hash join on `company_id` with the OR as a join filter. With nested loops off, the old statement takes seconds. The local benchmark below shows this. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline: `02bfe71a6b`. **Deployment mode** Server with PostgreSQL. Local proof uses disposable PostgreSQL 18.1. Production and staging use hosted PostgreSQL. Related: the earlier change that split native and legacy bindings for other ownership reads (see the "Execution recovery query performance" section in `doc/DATABASE.md`). A search found no open pull request for this check. ## What Changed - `checkUserCommentsWithoutWake` reads in three materialized stages: 1. Recent user comments on assigned, non-conversation tasks that no wake request carries. This stage keeps the same issue, status and agent-closed rules. 2. Of those, comments with no live or later run and with at least one earlier run. 3. Of those, comments that no live run acknowledged in an item event (the steer check). Only this stage reads event payloads. - Each run lookup is two probes: one on the legacy context ID and one on the native issue column. Both use existing indexes. `exists (A or B)` becomes `exists (A) or exists (B)`, which is logically the same. - Each probe ends with `offset 0`. This keeps it a per-row index lookup. Without it, PostgreSQL can build a hashed subplan over all runs, or a hash join over all item events of the company. The repository already uses this fence in `execution-blocker.ts`. - The final `order by c.created_at limit N`, the projection, the grace window and the reported reason do not change. - Add `scripts/benchmark-comment-wake-check.ts`. It loads the check from an explicit baseline commit and from the working tree, and it compares the complete service result and the complete positional SQL rows before it records time. - Add a regression test for each run binding on its own: native only, legacy only, live run, later run, steered run, an acknowledgement before the comment, a log-only mention, a run that ended before the comment, and a run in another company. - Document the check and the benchmark command in `doc/DATABASE.md`. - No schema change, index, migration, or new startup work. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts --maxWorkers=1`: 34 passed. This includes the existing lost-wake, restart, steered and agent-closed tests and the new binding test. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-comment-wake-check.ts --baseline-ref=02bfe71a6b --samples=7` Benchmark setup: PostgreSQL 18.1 (embedded, local), `shared_buffers` 128 MB, `work_mem` 4 MB. All data is synthetic, with md5-hex filler so contexts and payloads do not compress well. There are two companies per fixture. Two warmup rounds, then 7 timed samples for each arm, in alternating order. Each sample runs the real check function. Before any timing, each fixture asserts that the complete check result and every positional SQL row are equal for baseline and treatment, and that the fixture reports at least one owed comment. Every timed sample also asserts the same result. | Fixture | Runs / recent comments / owed | Baseline median | Treatment median | Speedup | Hash-join plan, baseline → treatment | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | small | 2,541 / 50 / 6 | 8.5 ms | 2.6 ms | 3.2x | 19 ms → 3 ms | | representative | 75,502 / 750 / 75 | 26.4 ms | 23.3 ms | 1.1x | 2,262 ms → 17 ms | | lost steer wakes | 38,002 / 750 / 75 | 454.7 ms | 66.9 ms | 6.8x | 2,717 ms → 68 ms | | deep history | 150,750 / 1,125 / 114 | 26.9 ms | 18.8 ms | 1.4x | 4,006 ms → 34 ms | | busy hour | 128,750 / 5,625 / 200 (limit) | 79.2 ms | 47.4 ms | 1.7x | 20,047 ms → 75 ms | | long steered runs (stress) | 19,100 / 600 / 60 | 626.4 ms | 457.4 ms | 1.4x | 5,871 ms → 502 ms | - The table above used baseline `02bfe71a6b`, the branch base at that time. After the rebase, a repeat run with baseline `8004ad069e` (the new merge base, with the helper guard fixed to run from the repository root) gave the same picture on a busier machine: small 15.4 → 9.1 ms, lost steer wakes 1,733 → 139 ms, busy hour 103 → 65 ms, all with equal results. - The "lost steer wakes" fixture shows the slow plan with default planner settings. PostgreSQL hashed all runs by company and tested 273 comments against 38,002 runs. - The last column runs each statement once with `enable_nestloop = off`. This makes the company-only hash join that the old statement allows visible, and it shows that the new statement has no such plan. The result is checked as equal in this mode too. Staging's 23 s mean matches this growth: recent comments multiplied by the company's run count. - Shared buffers fell in every fixture except "small" with default settings (for example, busy hour 176,416 → 89,803). - Neutral path: in the "long steered runs" stress fixture, every steered comment lost its wake. These comments correctly reach the steer check. That check must read the payload of each item event after the comment in the run that was live, so it is the remaining cost. In normal operation a comment sent to a live run has a deferred wake that carries it, so stage one removes it. ## Risks - Low risk. The predicate is the same conjunction of conditions. Only the evaluation order and the probe shape change, and the benchmark asserts complete-row equality on six fixtures and in both planner modes. - Rows with the same `created_at` have no defined order, as before. The benchmark uses distinct times so positional comparison is meaningful. - `offset 0` stops PostgreSQL from turning these probes into joins. If a task someday has a very large number of runs, each probe still uses the company and issue indexes. - Upgrade safety: this change reads saved run, wake and event state only. It changes no persisted shape, run identity, or saved session, so state saved by the previous release carries forward unchanged. A cutover test is not applicable. - Not verified on the hosted database. The local proof uses synthetic data, and I did not capture a hosted plan. Confirm with a fresh query statistics window after deployment. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use (shell, file editing, local PostgreSQL) in Claude Code. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
50df9a19b9 |
perf(inbox): read only the execution workspaces Mine rows reference (#20388)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Mine inbox is the first page a board user opens to see the tasks that need them > - The page loaded the company's full execution-workspace summary list and kept task rows hidden until that list arrived > - On a company with thousands of workspaces, that read checks each workspace row against the privacy predicate. It was the slowest request on the page > - The inbox needs workspace names only for the workspaces its rows reference, and only when the view shows workspace data > - This pull request adds an `ids` filter to the summary read, makes the inbox request only referenced workspaces, and stops rows from waiting for workspace data when the view does not show it > - The benefit is that Mine rows appear when the task data arrives, and the workspace read becomes a small bounded query ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Mine inbox (`/:companyPrefix/issues?view=mine`) shows its task rows late on companies with many execution workspaces. **Subsystem affected** Board UI inbox and the execution-workspace summary API. **Current behavior** The page calls `GET /api/companies/:id/execution-workspaces?summary=true` with no filter. On a large company this returned 8,758 rows (2.5 MB) and took 12.3 s on the server. The reveal gate included this read, so rows appeared at 13.4 s although `inbox/mine` arrived at 1.6 s. **Proposed behavior** The inbox requests summaries only for the workspaces its rows reference. Rows appear when the Mine task data arrives, unless the view shows workspace data. **Reason and benefit** The workspace read becomes a small bounded query, and it leaves the critical path for the default Mine view. **Breaking changes** None. The `ids` parameter is optional and additive. ## What Changed - `packages/shared`: add `executionWorkspaceSummaryIdsQuerySchema` (comma-separated UUIDs, 1–100 distinct values) and `EXECUTION_WORKSPACE_SUMMARY_IDS_MAX`. - `server`: `GET /companies/:companyId/execution-workspaces` accepts `ids`. Bad input returns 422. The service adds `inArray(execution_workspaces.id, ids)`. The company scope and the actor read condition still apply, so privacy does not change. - `ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.ts`: `listSummaries` accepts `ids`. New `listSummariesByIds` reads ids in chunks of 100 and concatenates the results. - `ui/src/pages/Inbox.tsx`: the workspace query is keyed on the sorted distinct `executionWorkspaceId`s of the rows the inbox holds (Mine, touched, context and remote search issues). It uses `keepPreviousData` and runs only when isolated workspaces are on and at least one id exists. - Reveal gate: rows wait for the workspace read only when workspace data changes what the rows show. This is workspace grouping, a visible Workspace column, or an active search (workspace names are searchable). Otherwise rows reveal without it. - Tests: route ids pass-through and 422 cases (non-uuid, empty, separators only, more than 100); service test for the id filter with company scope and the read condition; UI api chunking test; Inbox tests for "rows reveal while the workspace read is pending when no workspace column or grouping is active", rows waiting when the Workspace column is visible, and "shows the resolved isolated workspace name" with the id-filtered call. Follow-ups (not changed here, they still read the unfiltered list): - `ui/src/pages/LegacyInbox.tsx:772` - `ui/src/components/IssuesList.tsx:985` - `ui/src/components/LegacyIssuesList.tsx:888` - `ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.tsx:570` (filtered by project and reuse, but not by ids) ## Verification Focused checks on this revision: - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t "summar|ids"`: 14 passed (embedded Postgres ran the service test). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`: all passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: clean. - `pnpm verify` selected 2,481 Vitest files (the shared validator change reaches most suites). I stopped it at a 25-minute limit on a heavily loaded shared host. Before the limit, three server tests outside this change failed: `agent-commentary-skills` (skill mount), `agent-config-read-access` (24.8 s timeout) and `agent-directory-working-copies`. Required CI supplies the full coverage. - Review fix `fc3f82dae0`: when workspace data is visible, the reveal gate also waits while `keepPreviousData` supplies the previous id set's summaries. A new test switches Mine → Recent to a new workspace and checks the Recent row stays hidden until its workspace loads. It fails without the change. - Follow-up commits `bf34f84823` and `8fc743b5ca` add a 100-row Mine test with a counted workspace id scan. It fails with the old `= []` defaults and passes with the stable `NO_ISSUES` default. Performance (local, synthetic fixture): - Instance: isolated worktree instance, `authenticated` mode, signed in as a non-admin company member so the real workspace privacy predicate runs. Production UI bundle (`PAPERCLIP_UI_DEV_MIDDLEWARE=false`). Headless Chromium 1440×900, a new browser context per run (cold HTTP cache and cold query cache). macOS, Apple Silicon, with other local sessions running. - Fixture: 8,750 execution workspaces (each with a source task and a privacy-source key), 38,750 tasks, 150 Mine tasks; the Mine snapshot returns 100 rows that reference 100 workspaces. - Finish event: the first `[data-slot="task-row"]` is in the DOM. | Measurement | Before (`02bfe71a6b`) | After | | --- | --- | --- | | Cold time to rows, median of 7 | 1,209 ms (1,046–1,312) | 702 ms (567–1,209) | | Workspace summary read, server wait (time to first byte), median of 7 | 496 ms unfiltered, 2.0 MB | 18 ms with 100 ids, 22 KB | The difference of medians is 507 ms. This is close to the unfiltered read's wait on this fixture (about 550–590 ms in the browser runs). The runs were sequential batches, not alternating pairs. Limits: this fixture does not reproduce the 12.3 s server time seen on the development instance. Here the unfiltered read cost 0.5–1.7 s and grew with the company's task count. The browser gain on the original instance should be close to that instance's unfiltered read time, but I did not measure it there. ## Risks - Low risk. The `ids` filter only narrows the existing query. It does not change the read condition or the company scope. - A row whose workspace is not readable by the actor shows no workspace name, as before. - When the Workspace column or grouping is visible, rows still wait for the workspace read. That read is now small. - When the id set changes, the query refetches all chunks. Before a view first reveals, rows wait for the new summaries if workspace data is visible. After that, the previous names stay visible while a refresh loads. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, headless browser). Extended reasoning on. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1c868b86be |
fix(server): tell agents who owns a plugin-managed routine and where it is changed (#20409)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A plugin can create and own routines ("plugin-managed routines").
The routine row shows the plugin in `managedByPlugin`.
> - An agent reads routines through `GET` and `PATCH
/api/routines/{id}`. These API catalog entries had no description.
> - So an agent that read `managedByPlugin` did not know what it meant
or where a person changes the routine.
> - In chat evals, the agent searched for managed-routine routes and
probed plugin files for over four minutes. It did not reply.
> - This pull request adds one shared description to both catalog
entries. It says the plugin owns the definition, links the board's
plugin settings page, and tells the agent not to rewrite, detach or
duplicate the routine.
> - The benefit is that the agent can answer at once and send the person
to the correct page.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This is a bug report.
**What happened**
A person asked the CEO agent in chat to rewrite a routine that a plugin
manages. The agent read the routine and saw `managedByPlugin`. No tool
result or catalog entry told it what that field means. The agent
searched the API catalog ("plugin managed routine", "managedByPlugin",
"detach plugin managed routine"), tried to read plugin UI files, and
listed agents. After more than four minutes it had not replied, and the
chat timed out. This happened in two separate runs.
**Expected behavior**
The agent replies promptly. It says that the plugin owns the routine,
does not rewrite or copy it, and links the plugin settings page where a
board user changes what the plugin exposes.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a plugin that declares a managed routine (`routines.managed`
capability, top-level `routines[]`).
2. Open a chat with the CEO and select the routine.
3. Ask: "Rewrite this plugin's daily maintenance routine."
4. Look at the agent's `search_api` results for `GET /api/routines/{id}`
and `PATCH /api/routines/{id}`. They have no description.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add a shared
`PLUGIN_MANAGED_ROUTINE_GUIDANCE` description to `GET
/api/routines/{id}` and `PATCH /api/routines/{id}`. It names
`managedByPlugin`, links `[plugin
settings](/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/plugins/<pluginId>)`, and
tells agents to reply with that link instead of rewriting, detaching or
duplicating the routine. The `PATCH` entry also states the existing
agent rule (own routines only, no reassignment).
- `server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routine-guidance.test.ts`: new
regression test. The queries the agent actually used now find these
entries with the guidance, and the linked settings route is mounted in
`ui/src/App.tsx`.
## Verification
- Red then green: `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routine-guidance.test.ts` failed 6/6 before
the change and passes 6/6 after.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/person-only-page-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/skill-import-discovery.test.ts` passes.
- `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit -p .` passes.
- Live chat eval `routines.plugin-managed-routine` on a branch with this
commit: see the comment on this PR for the run.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change adds documentation text to two API catalog
entries. Routes and permissions do not change.
- The catalog search scores description words, so these two entries can
rank a little higher for queries about plugins or managed resources.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e1010e7678 |
perf(api): per-phase Server-Timing for the Mine inbox snapshot (#20408)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Mine inbox page reads one snapshot: `GET
/api/companies/:companyId/inbox/mine`.
> - This read is slow. It takes 280–570 ms on a dev instance and 1.9–3.2
s on staging.
> - The response has only the total `paperclip_api` Server-Timing value.
We cannot see which phase is slow.
> - Issue detail already reports per-phase Server-Timing
(`issue-read-timing.ts`). The Mine snapshot does not.
> - This pull request adds per-phase Server-Timing to the Mine snapshot,
including each lookup inside the issue list.
> - The benefit is that DevTools on any instance shows the slow phase
directly. A follow-up PR uses it to prove a query rewrite.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Server-Timing header of `GET /api/companies/:companyId/inbox/mine`.
**Subsystem affected**
Server API: issues routes and the issue list service.
**Current behavior**
The header has only `paperclip_api;dur=…`. Slow access checks, issue
lists, parent context, failed-run reads and list enrichment lookups all
look the same.
**Proposed behavior**
The header also has `paperclip_inbox` (total) and one `inbox_<phase>`
entry for each phase that ran.
**Reason and benefit**
We need phase evidence from staging and production to rank the slow
parts. No telemetry is sent; this is a response header only.
## What Changed
- Added `server/src/services/inbox-mine-timing.ts`. It times closed,
content-free phases and formats a Server-Timing value. It emits no spans
and no telemetry events.
- `issueService.list` accepts an optional third argument, `{ timePhase
}`. It wraps the list's own reads: `query`, `labels`, `active_runs`,
`user_stats`, `read_stats`, `last_activity`, `archives`, `blocked_by`,
`live_descendants`, `attention`. Callers that do not pass it are
unchanged.
- The Mine route reports `inbox_access`, `inbox_issues`,
`inbox_parents`, `inbox_failures`, `inbox_failure_context` and
`inbox_issues_<list phase>`. The existing middleware merges these with
`paperclip_api`.
- The index-projection list no longer awaits a `Promise.all` of
already-empty attention maps. The result is the same.
- `inbox-mine-routes.test.ts` asserts that all phases are present with a
valid duration.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/inbox-mine-routes.test.ts` — 6/6 pass, including the new
header assertion.
- `tsc --noEmit -p server` — no errors in the changed files.
- `pnpm verify --explain` selects 2,417 of 3,204 test files for this
change, because `services/issues.ts` is imported almost everywhere. I
did not repeat that full suite locally (AGENTS.md §7); required CI
supplies it.
- Manual: open the Mine inbox, then DevTools → Network → `inbox/mine` →
Timing. The phases show under Server Timing.
## Risks
- Low risk. The header adds about 13 short entries. Phase names are
fixed strings and contain no task data.
- `timePhase` is optional, so other `svc.list` callers do not change.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits). Standard context window; extended thinking
not used.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7a93cc6215 |
fix(server): redact invitation tokens from agent run logs (#20360)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People join a company through an invitation link. The link carries a bearer token in its URL path. > - An agent can create an invitation in chat and give the person the join link. > - The server writes each agent run to a run log file (`.ndjson`). This file is a plain diagnostic copy. Local agents run as the same OS user, so they can read it. > - #20343 removed invitation tokens from HTTP logs. The run log still kept the full join link and the raw token. > - This pull request removes invitation tokens from run-log chunks when the server writes them. > - The benefit is that a live join link does not stay in a file that other local agents can read. The person still gets the working link in the chat reply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20343 (same token policy for HTTP logs). **What happened?** An agent created an invitation in chat and replied with a `/invite/<token>` join link. The agent run log file under `data/run-logs/` kept the full token. The token was in the agent message and in the tool result. **Expected behavior** The run log keeps the route and drops the token: `/invite/***REDACTED***`. A raw `pcp_invite_...` token also becomes `***REDACTED***`. The chat reply that the person reads keeps the working join link. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out master. 2. Run `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-log.test.ts` from this PR. 3. The "run-log invitation token privacy" tests fail. The token stays in both the legacy text chunk and the canonical native envelope. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at the merge base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Source server, local run logs (`local_file`). The same functions also format object-store run logs. ## What Changed - Add `redactInvitationTokens()` in `server/src/middleware/invitation-token-redaction.ts`, next to the HTTP log redactor from #20343. It removes the token from `/invite/<token>` segments and from raw `pcp_invite_` tokens inside free text and JSON text. The character classes stop at JSON, Markdown and URL delimiters, so the record structure stays valid. `redact-sensitive.ts` stays byte-identical, because the chat eval pins its exact bytes before it accepts a real invitation link. - Apply it in `compactRunLogChunk()` and `redactCanonicalNativeRunLogChunk()`. These are the two functions that format every agent run-log chunk before the store writes it. The run excerpt columns use the same chunk, so they are also redacted. - `canonicalNativeRunLogRedactionForms()` also yields the earlier, unredacted projection. A run log written by an earlier release still verifies after an upgrade. - `restoreCompactedEvent()` accepts a truncated record that the earlier compactor wrote with the token. Cold recovery of such an old log still works. - Add a test that proves the chat reply comes from database run events, not from the run log. The reply keeps the full join link, and the presentation path never reads the run log. ## Verification - From `server`: `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config vitest.config.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-log.test.ts src/__tests__/invitation-token-redaction.test.ts src/__tests__/redact-sensitive.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts src/__tests__/logger-invitation-redaction.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-run-log-watermark.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-run-log-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-output.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts` passes. - Before the `run-log.ts` change, the two new redaction tests in `run-log.test.ts` failed (red), then passed (green). - `native-run-log-watermark.test.ts`: a legacy-compacted record with a token in its retained head cold-recovers. It failed with `native_log_source_coverage_unproven` before the restore fix. - `agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts` (embedded Postgres): a final reply with a join link is saved as the exact comment with the token. No run-log read happens. - `tsc --noEmit -p server` shows no errors in the changed files. - A live chat eval (`access.invite-teammate`) run with this change confirms the run-log file has no token. The run is linked in a comment. ## Risks - Low risk. Run-log readers (run transcript view, feedback export, support inspection) now show `***REDACTED***` in place of invitation tokens. This removes a live credential from a diagnostic copy. It does not change the chat reply or the stored run events. - A path segment after `/invite/` in free text is always redacted, even if it is not a token. This loses only diagnostic detail. - A token that a provider streams across two separate chunks is not joined first. Each chunk is redacted on its own. A complete token in one chunk, such as a final message or a tool result, is removed. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b09f17fbfd |
fix(agents): repair queued setup through task connection cards (#20361)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents doing work for people. > - Agent verification must finish before an accepted task can start. > - A missing AI account default can prevent verification before a provider starts. > - Lifecycle policy treated that owned configuration refusal as a temporary failure and retried each minute. > - The accepted turn remained Queued without explaining the prerequisite. > - Park account configuration failures and reuse the task's existing inline connection card. > - Successful repair rechecks verification and releases the original queued turn under its original authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An OpenCode agent selected the responsible user's OpenRouter default, but that default did not exist. Verification retried unchanged configuration indefinitely and its accepted task stayed Queued. **Expected behavior:** Preserve accepted work, explain the setup prerequisite, and let the appropriate person repair it using the existing task connection UI. Completion must verify the agent before starting the same queued turn. Genuine pause, approval and access gates remain effective. **Reproduction:** Create an OpenCode Runner agent with a responsible-user OpenRouter binding and no personal default; assign a task while verification is pending. The base retries verification and shows an unexplained queue. Related: #18702 handles pending task connection recovery after account repair. This PR handles the earlier agent-verification boundary. #20330 addresses a separate Codex governed-wait timeout and is already merged. ## What Changed - Share owned account-selection failure evidence through a pure library contract. Lifecycle policy parks those configuration failures with fixed, redacted guidance; temporary infrastructure errors retain their retries. - Batch setup-state reads for unstarted queued turns. Distinguish manual repair from automatic setup retries and preserve Stop, started/history state and lifecycle holds. - Reuse the existing `connection_intent` card, account selection and completion APIs. Its controller-only `agentSetup` marker accepts only never-started legacy turns; runtime tokens still require a running run. - Address the card to the lifecycle verifier's account owner, preserving the task's execution principal and private-task visibility. Attach missing cards on admission, verification, startup and full recovery, including retained retries and continuations. Repeated delivery and publication remain bounded. A new queued turn supersedes the setup card of a stopped turn; generic connection cards retain cross-run reuse. - Recheck lifecycle verification after usable-account completion, then release the existing turn through the normal readiness path. Preserve decline, Stop, reassignment and changed setup-owner gates. Fence an in-flight verification failure from overwriting a repair; add no provider wake or recurring worker. - Park owned account refusals during resume as well as initial verification. Bind setup cards to the lifecycle operation, settle obsolete deliveries, and keep explicit Retry guidance accurate. - Reuse the router’s existing lifecycle pin for setup repair without rerouting the task, advancing the pool cursor, or replacing its saved binding. Legacy direct-account cards remain readable. - Hide the incorrect Resume banner during setup, retaining genuine manual/budget pause controls. Document the execution and retry contract. ## Verification - Red: eight original behavior assertions failed on the base, including the real selector's retry decision and the real batched queue projection. Six owned selection cases failed classification. Temporary-error presentation, different task/verifier users, retained retry/continuation recovery and the setup Resume banner also have failing-before/passing-after regressions. - Green: 430 affected backend, lifecycle, shared-contract and UI tests passed before the final review corrections. Subsequent focused runs cover one inline card, real account selection/completion, duplicate delivery/publication, verification before readiness, unchanged run authority, private tasks, no extra provider wake, decline/Stop/reassignment, company isolation, invalid runtime tokens, transient retries and redacted diagnostics. - Final setup/card and generic connection-service suites: 49 tests passed. The stopped-turn case failed before the correction, then passed with real account completion, the stopped source remaining cancelled, and the replacement source remaining queued. - After rebase, all 129 focused assertions passed. The local queue suite’s 88 execution assertions passed repeatedly, but its database-fixture teardown exceeded both 30-second and 120-second hooks. An isolated queue case completed, and the setup/connection suites fully passed. The original queue test and cleanup remain unchanged; broad CI supplies the full-suite result. - Server/UI typechecks, module boundaries, token gates and diff checks passed. `pnpm verify --explain` requested broad CI because the execution-contract document changed; no redundant full local suite was substituted. - Real source acceptance: macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0, isolated embedded PostgreSQL and local board identity. Created an OpenCode/OpenRouter agent and task through the API with no default. Admission retained one unstarted turn and produced the existing inline Connect OpenRouter card. The browser opened its credential form and closed it without entering credentials. The same card/run persisted after server restart and reload, with the setup label and no incorrect Resume. The browser also reproduced Stop followed by a new queued turn retaining the stale card on the prior head. On `12f609c98372fd1e50644028db75cfcc8deb210d`, startup superseded the stale card and retained the same replacement turn, with the original turn still cancelled and no provider execution. - The earlier CI case-search failure also reproduces on exact base `0e3fdebea8257bdff11573081c76b306f12db230` without this PR. Its repair is now in master via #20371; this branch is rebased onto it and contains no API-search changes. - Staging's actual Runtime test returned “Connect an account and choose your personal default” before provider startup. The original turn later started independently on deployed code, then hit a separate workspace-export failure. Automatic file recovery subsequently marked that run successful; its task remains Blocked and the trial’s useful output is unverified. This PR is not deployed; provider authentication through its card and downstream publication remain unverified. No account, credential, default, permission or binding was changed during diagnosis. - Previous revision review: Greptile 5/5 on `12f609c98372fd1e50644028db75cfcc8deb210d`, with all four inline findings addressed and resolved. [Full CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42713494508) on that revision: 59 successful checks, one neutral check and three intentional skips, with no pending or failed checks. - Latest revision `976bcae993805a8a2222395bbff9394f6791b424`: resume, router and Retry-copy regressions failed before repair. Green: 92 lifecycle/setup/shared tests, 83 setup/generic-connection/router tests, and 137 UI/shared tests. Server/UI typechecks, module boundaries and token gates passed. [Full CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42720731137) on this exact revision: 59 successful checks and three intentional skips, with no pending or failed checks. Greptile reviewed this head at 5/5; all six review findings are addressed and resolved. Real Stop/retry acceptance retained the same replacement turn and current-operation card through two actual server restarts, with no provider execution. ## Risks - Known account configuration failures now require repair or explicit Retry. Temporary failures keep automatic retries; accepted work and authority remain intact. - The projection adds one company-scoped batch read only for unstarted queued turns. Card attachment examines at most 100 active candidates and adds no timer, worker, schema or migration. - The optional stored setup-card marker requires an aware reader during rollback. No run/session/checkpoint identity format changes. Setup presentation grants no access and cannot bypass verification or other gates. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, tool use, code editing and test execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7e93ccb4b3 |
perf: fetch recent task summaries in one request (#20389)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI sidebar shows the person's recent tasks on every page, including the Mine inbox > - The sidebar refreshes those rows through `GET /companies/:id/issues/summaries`, which accepted at most five IDs > - `useRecentTasks` sent the chunks one after another, so a 25-task history cost five sequential requests > - On staging each request took 3–6 s, so the recent-task rows settled about 20 s after load and every request competed with the inbox rows > - This pull request raises the per-request cap to 50 and fetches any remaining chunks in parallel > - The benefit is one summaries request for a typical history instead of a serial chain ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The refresh of the sidebar's recent tasks on page load. **Subsystem affected** Board UI (`ui/src/hooks/useRecentTasks.ts`) and the `/issues/summaries` route bound (`packages/shared`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`). **Current behavior** A history of N recent tasks sends ceil(N/5) summaries requests in series. Measured on staging on 2026-11-09 for a cold Mine load: five requests of five IDs, started at 1.0 s, 4.3 s, 8.1 s, 12.3 s and 18.4 s, each taking 3.3–6.1 s. **Proposed behavior** Up to 50 recent tasks are one request. Longer histories send their chunks at the same time. **Reason and benefit** The staging server is saturated, so each extra serial round trip delays the sidebar and the inbox rows. One request removes four round trips from a typical load. ## What Changed - `ISSUE_SUMMARIES_MAX_IDS` is now 50 (was 5). The shared validator, the route's 400 message, the service guard and the OpenAPI description use the new bound. - `useRecentTasks` builds all chunks first and fetches them at most three at a time (`RECENT_TASK_SUMMARY_CONCURRENCY`). The recent list has no size cap, so this keeps a long history from becoming a burst. The cache key, omission handling and pruning are unchanged. A failed chunk still fails the batch, so nothing is pruned on a partial failure. - Tests: the route test accepts exactly `MAX` IDs and rejects `MAX + 1`; a hook test checks that at most three chunks are in flight; the API test uses the constant; `useRecentTasks` tests cover a 25-task history in one request and a 103-task history with three chunks in flight together, with and without a failed chunk. - New browser check `tests/perf/collections/recent-task-summaries.spec.ts`: a Mine load with a 12-task history sends summaries requests that each carry all 12 IDs, and the server answers 200 with all 12 tasks. ## Verification - `pnpm verify` (selected Vitest files) passes. - `server`: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-summaries-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-display-status.test.ts` passes (embedded PostgreSQL). - `ui`: `npx vitest run src/hooks/useRecentTasks.test.tsx src/api/issue-summaries.test.ts src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBlockerLinks.test.tsx src/components/CoordinatorSidebar.test.tsx src/components/SidebarRecentTasks.test.tsx` passes. - Browser check against a disposable local instance: `PAPERCLIP_COLLECTION_PERF_BASE_URL=http://127.0.0.1:<port> pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/collections/playwright.config.ts recent-task-summaries.spec.ts`. It passes on this branch. With `master`'s hook and constant it fails: three requests of 5, 5 and 2 IDs. ## Risks - Low risk. The route still validates UUIDs, deduplicates, and applies the same read authorization per row. Blocker attention is computed with set-based queries, so 50 IDs is the same number of queries as 5. - During a rolling deploy, a new UI against an old server would get a 400 for a history above five tasks. The server serves the UI bundle, so both change together on a normal deploy. The sidebar keeps its stored snapshot when the refresh fails. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser). 1M-token context window. Extended thinking was off. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c985541a57 |
perf(db): index retry-exhaustion receipts for the attention scan (#20386)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The attention feed shows runs that failed after automatic retries stopped > - To find these runs, the feed reads every `heartbeat_run_events` row of the company and filters the rows by a message prefix > - Run output makes this table very large, so each feed request does a large scan > - On a hosted test database, this one statement used the most total database time: 923 calls at a mean of 5 s (4,709 s in total) > - Request authentication waits behind this background work, so all users feel the load > - This pull request adds a small partial index that holds only the retry-exhaustion receipts > - The benefit is that the same query reads a few index entries instead of all company events ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The attention feed query that finds retry-exhausted runs (`listAttentionExhaustedRuns`). **Subsystem affected** Server attention feed and the `heartbeat_run_events` table schema. **Current behavior** The query reads all company rows in `heartbeat_run_events`, filters them by `event_type = 'lifecycle'` and the `Bounded retry exhausted` message prefix, and then joins the few matches to failed or timed-out runs. The cost grows with all run output. It does not grow with the number of exhausted runs. **Proposed behavior** A partial index holds only the matching receipts. The query plan reads the index and joins a few rows. The query text and the result do not change. **Reason and benefit** The scan was the most expensive statement by total time on a loaded hosted database. A local reproduction shows a 54x faster query and about 116x fewer buffer reads. **Breaking changes** None. The API, the feed rows, and their order do not change. ## What Changed - Add the partial index `heartbeat_run_events_retry_exhausted_idx` on `(company_id, run_id, id DESC)`. The index covers only rows where `event_type = 'lifecycle'` and `message like 'Bounded retry exhausted%'`. - Add migration `0454`. It uses `CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY IF NOT EXISTS`. The migration runner runs it as a top-level statement, the same as migrations 0432, 0436 and 0450. - Add a regression test. It pins the row order (newest run first, then the newest receipt on a tie) and the latest receipt per run. It also checks that the query plan can use the new index. If the query predicate changes so that the index no longer applies, the test fails. - Add `scripts/benchmark-exhausted-run-attention.ts`. It measures the same query with and without the index, and the time to build the index. - Document the index in `doc/DATABASE.md`. ## Verification Cause and thesis. The scan cost comes from reading all company events, not from the few exhausted runs. Thesis: an index that holds only the receipts makes the query cost depend on the number of receipts, and keeps the result identical. The benchmark below confirms the thesis. Rejected alternative without a migration. I first tried a LATERAL lookup that starts from the failed and timed-out runs. On the same fixture it was about 2x slower (median 379 ms against 194 ms). It reads the full event history of each failed run with random I/O, and that costs more than one sequential scan. Local SQL benchmark (the SQL that the service generates; same SQL with and without the index): ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-exhausted-run-attention.ts --runs=30000 --events-per-run=100 --samples=9 ``` Fixture (synthetic): one company with 30,000 runs (3,819 failed or timed out) and 3.0 M events, plus a decoy company with 0.5 M events. The table is 1.4 GB. About 5% of events are `lifecycle` events. Events of 20 concurrent runs are interleaved. 1 in 23 runs has a receipt, some runs have two receipts, and output decoys contain the prefix. Two agents are terminated. Embedded PostgreSQL 18.1 on an Apple laptop. The hosted database is Neon with different compute, so the absolute times are local SQL measurements only. The script runs two cycles (without index, then with index; then with index, then without index) to expose cache bias. Each measurement has 2 warmups and 9 samples. | Query | Without index | With index | Samples and spread | Output check | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `listAttentionExhaustedRuns` | median 157 ms (96–1,271 ms) | median 3.3 ms (2.2–5.7 ms) | 18 each | 133 rows, positional rows equal in all 4 measurements | | Buffers (EXPLAIN ANALYZE) | 127,743 blocks | 5,580 blocks | | plan uses the new index (asserted) | Speedup: 48x (median), on head `ae6037b2a0` (the same SQL and index as the final head). The machine was under heavy load from other work, so the spread without the index is wide. An earlier run on the first head gave 248 ms against 4.6 ms (54x). Index build (`CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY` from the migration file): 1.7 s and 2.5 s for the 1.4 GB table. Index size: 152 KiB. Review fix: the query now writes `event_type = 'lifecycle'` as a SQL literal, not a bound parameter. With prepared statements, PostgreSQL can reuse a generic plan. A generic plan cannot prove that a bound parameter matches the index predicate, so it would not use the index. Tests: - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts`: 44 passed. The new test checks a fresh plan and a forced generic plan (`plan_cache_mode = force_generic_plan` with `PREPARE`). It failed with the bound `event_type` parameter and with a changed message prefix (confirmed red), and it passes with the fix. Locally, the file's `afterAll` database cleanup hook timed out on a heavily loaded machine (load average about 28). The timeout also occurs when the new test is excluded. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`: passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm verify`: see the CI results for this head. ## Risks - Migration time. A concurrent index build reads the full `heartbeat_run_events` table and does not block writes. Locally, the build took 1.2–2.5 s for 1.4 GB. The time grows linearly with the table size. I did not time the build on a production-size clone. On a database with a 5 s full company scan, I estimate the build at tens of seconds, which is in the 1–2 minute budget. This estimate is not proven. - If the build stops, PostgreSQL can leave an invalid index. The migration runner repairs invalid concurrent indexes when it runs again, and `IF NOT EXISTS` makes a rerun safe. - The index predicate must stay textually equal to the query predicate. If someone changes the message prefix or binds a predicate value as a parameter, the planner cannot use the index. The new test catches both cases, for fresh and generic plans. - Each new receipt writes one more small index entry. Receipts are rare, so the write cost is very small. - The hosted improvement is not verified until deployment. After deployment, compare a new query-statistics window for this statement. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local PostgreSQL). Standard context window and reasoning mode. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c57cd1bdb9 |
perf(server): read plugin lifecycle inbox heads in one pass (#20405)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Plugins get agent, project and agent runtime changes from the `resource_lifecycle_events` journal. Each plugin acknowledges events one resource at a time. > - The inbox page query checked each unacknowledged event against all older events of the same resource. Each check walked the acknowledged history of that resource. > - Agent runtime streams get a new event for each configuration change, so one resource can have thousands of acknowledged events. The cost grew as pending events times acknowledged history. > - On a hosted instance, three copies of this read ran for 601 seconds each, and one earlier copy ran for 19 minutes. The delivery worker runs it again after each acknowledgment. > - This pull request selects the head of each resource in one pass and keeps the same result. > - The benefit is that the page read is linear in the company journal size. In local tests it is 250x to 660x faster, and the result rows are equal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The plugin lifecycle inbox page query (`select "id", "company_id", "resource_type", "resource_id", "action", "created_at" from "resource_lifecycle_events" where ...`) ran for 601 seconds on a hosted database. Three copies were active at the same time. **Expected behavior** A lifecycle page read must stay fast when a resource has a long acknowledged history and a pending backlog. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Give a company 40 agents with 1,500 `agent_runtime` events each. 2. Acknowledge the first 1,200 events of each agent for one plugin. 3. Call `pluginLifecycleInbox(db, pluginId).list(companyId, 100, undefined, ["agent", "project", "agent_runtime"])`. 4. The read takes about 10 seconds for 60,000 events of that company. At 200,000 events it takes about 6 minutes. **Paperclip version or commit** `02bfe71a6b` (master). **Deployment mode** Hosted (PostgreSQL). Local repro uses embedded PostgreSQL 18. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/plugin-lifecycle-inbox.ts`: `list` now selects one head per resource with `DISTINCT ON (resource_type, resource_id)`. The head is the unacknowledged creation, else the oldest unacknowledged event. Then the query applies `afterId`, id order and the limit. This is the same set that the old `firstForResource` predicate admits. `acknowledge` keeps the old predicate for its single-event check. - `plugin-lifecycle-inbox.ts`: new `hasPending(companyId, types)`. It returns whether any unacknowledged event exists. Each resource with an unacknowledged event has a head, so this gives the same answer as `list(companyId, 1).length > 0`. - `server/src/services/plugin-lifecycle-delivery.ts`: the idle-sleep journal check uses `hasPending`. This keeps its early exit. A one-row `list` page would read the full journal. - `server/src/__tests__/resource-lifecycle-events.test.ts`: new database test for heads across acknowledged history, a creation recorded after transitions, acknowledged gaps, shared ids across resource types, per-plugin progress, another company, `afterId` pages, limits, `hasPending`, and the next head after an acknowledgment. The test also passes on the old query, so it locks the contract. - `scripts/benchmark-plugin-lifecycle-inbox.ts`: new benchmark. It loads the baseline service from git, runs both on the same fixture, alternates order, asserts equal rows, and prints plans. - `doc/DATABASE.md`: describes the read cost and the benchmark command. - No schema change, index or migration. ## Verification Thesis: the old read cost is (unacknowledged candidates) x (acknowledged older events per resource), because each candidate walks the acknowledged prefix of its resource. One pass that keeps the per-resource head removes that product and returns equal rows. Baseline plan at 220,080 events: 40,020 candidates each walked about 3,999 older rows, which gave 160,039,980 acknowledgment probes and 562,140,833 buffer hits. The treatment plan reads the journal once with a hash anti join and sorts the 40,020 unacknowledged rows (3,925 buffer hits). Local SQL timings (embedded PostgreSQL 18, Apple Silicon; event counts include a 20,000-event second company, synthetic data, warm cache, one warmup, order alternates): | Fixture (events / acknowledged) | Case | Before median | After median | Samples (after) | Speedup | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 40,060 / 16,040 | page of 100, all types | 3,263 ms | 13.1 ms | 3 (12.0-14.1) | 250x | | 80,080 / 48,060 | page of 100, all types | 10,137 ms | 23.9 ms | 5 (22.7-32.6) | 424x | | 220,080 / 160,060 | page of 100, all types | 355,718 ms | 538 ms | 3 (72-785) | 662x | | 1,020,080 / 960,060 | page of 100, all types | not run (est. > 30 min) | 1,682 ms | 7 (1,203-2,384) | - | | 80,080 / 48,060 | page of 100, agent and project only | 1.5 ms | 1.6 ms | 5 | neutral | | 80,080 / 48,060 | idle-sleep check | 14.5 ms | 13.8 ms | 5 | neutral | | 1,020,080 / 960,060 | idle-sleep check | not run | 406 ms | 7 | - | - Result rows are equal (`assert.deepEqual` on all mapped rows, in order) for each case where both versions ran. - The agent runtime revision read in `plugin-agent-runtime-state.ts` and `agent-file-store.ts` (`select id ... order by id desc limit 1`) uses a backward index-only scan and reads 5 buffers at 1M events. It is not changed. Commands: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-plugin-lifecycle-inbox.ts --baseline-ref=02bfe71a6b --agents=40 --per-agent=1500 --acked=1200 --samples=5 pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-plugin-lifecycle-inbox.ts --baseline-ref=02bfe71a6b --agents=40 --per-agent=25000 --acked=24000 --samples=7 --treatment-only cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/resource-lifecycle-events.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-delivery.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-runtime-hooks.test.ts ``` - `resource-lifecycle-events.test.ts`: 28 passed. `plugin-lifecycle-delivery.test.ts`: 40 passed (includes idle-sleep "none" and "present"). `agent-runtime-hooks.test.ts`: 22 passed. - `tsc --noEmit -p server`: pass. ## Risks - The page read is still linear in the company journal size, because acknowledgments are per plugin and the journal has no retention yet. At 1M events a page takes about 1.7 s locally. Each acknowledgment wakes another full pass. A per-plugin cursor or retention can remove this later. - The planner can choose a different plan on the hosted database. The local plans use a hash anti join and one sort. The hosted improvement is not yet measured. - `acknowledge` still checks one event against older events of its resource. That check is linear in that resource's history per call, as before. - Low behavior risk: the new test passes on both the old and new queries. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local PostgreSQL). Extended reasoning on. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
17014cd7db |
perf(server): make run liveness backfill lookup issue-scoped (#20393)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Each finished agent run gets a liveness classification. The task
page shows it, and recovery reads it.
> - Run finalization writes the classification. A backfill repairs runs
that do not have it, for example older runs or runs whose finalization
failed.
> - The task page runs read (`GET /issues/:id/runs`) starts this
backfill on each read, for each task.
> - The candidate lookup reads every unclassified finished run in the
company. For each row, it reads the run context and probes
`activity_log`. Rows of other tasks never match, so each read repeats
the same work.
> - On a hosted test instance, this lookup used approximately 1 s per
call, 2,636 calls, and 3,500 s in total.
> - This pull request makes the lookup read only the rows of the task,
and skips a task after a pass finds nothing left to repair.
> - The benefit is less database work per task page read. The
classification still gets written.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The run liveness backfill that the task runs read starts
(`scheduleRunLivenessBackfill` in `server/src/services/activity.ts`).
**Subsystem affected**
Server: activity service, task runs read, run liveness backfill.
**Current behavior**
Each task runs read runs this lookup:
```sql
select ... from heartbeat_runs
where company_id = $1 and liveness_state is null and status not in ('queued', 'running')
and (context_snapshot ->> 'issueId' = $2
or exists (select 1 from activity_log where company_id = $3 and entity_type = 'issue'
and entity_id = $4 and run_id = heartbeat_runs.id))
limit 20
```
PostgreSQL reads all unclassified finished runs of the company through
`heartbeat_runs_company_liveness_idx`. It then reads the context of each
row, which can be large, and probes `activity_log` for each row.
Unclassified runs of other tasks, and runs without a task, stay
unclassified, because no read of their own task repairs them. Thus the
cost grows with the company, not with the task. The lookup also runs
again on each read when the task has nothing to repair.
**Proposed behavior**
- The lookup reads only the runs of this task. One branch uses
`heartbeat_runs_company_ctx_issue_created_idx` (context `issueId`). The
other branch uses `activity_log_company_entity_created_idx` (issue
activity rows with a run id). The result keeps the same filter: same
company, liveness missing, status not `queued` or `running`, at most 20
rows.
- When a pass finds fewer than 20 rows, it has repaired all rows of the
task. The service then skips the task for 10 minutes. A full batch of 20
does not start the skip window, so the next read repairs the next batch.
**Reason and benefit**
The lookup is now proportional to the history of one task. Most reads
find nothing, and those reads now do no database work for 10 minutes.
**Breaking changes**
None. No migration, no API change, no new background work.
**Additional context**
The chat bootstrap read already skips the backfill
(`skipLivenessBackfill`). That option still works, and a test covers it.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/run-liveness-backfill-query.ts`: new
`missingRunLivenessCandidatesQuery`. It replaces the `OR` and the
correlated `exists` with `id in (context branch union all activity
branch)`. Both branches are filtered by company and task.
- `server/src/services/activity.ts`: the backfill uses the new query and
returns the number of rows it found. `scheduleRunLivenessBackfill` keeps
a bounded in-memory map (at most 10,000 tasks, oldest entry is removed
first) of tasks with nothing left to repair. It skips these tasks for 10
minutes.
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`: four new
real-database tests.
- The backfill repairs runs found by context and runs found only by
issue activity. It does not change a running run, an unclassified run of
another task, or a run of another company that names the same task id.
- After a pass leaves nothing to repair, more reads do not repair a new
unclassified run. After the skip window ends, the next read repairs it.
- A task with 25 unclassified runs (more than one batch) gets all of
them repaired over later reads.
- A read with `skipLivenessBackfill` does not repair. The next normal
read does.
- `scripts/benchmark-run-liveness-backfill.ts`: a local SQL benchmark
that compares the pre-fix query with the new query.
## Verification
Local SQL benchmark (embedded PostgreSQL 18.1, macOS, synthetic data):
```sh
cd server
pnpm exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-run-liveness-backfill.ts --baseline-ref=02bfe71a6bbd7c5676cb7e72778b361c5bc72765
```
- Baseline: `02bfe71a6b` (pre-fix master). Treatment: `80fcfcf7f1`,
clean tree.
- Fixture assumptions (staging row counts were not available): one
company with 30,000 classified runs, 6,000 unclassified finished runs of
other tasks or of no task, each with an approximately 20 KiB hex
context, 400 other tasks, and 300,000 `activity_log` rows (half with a
run id). The target task has 40 classified runs, 200 activity rows, and
the missing rows of each case. Decoys: one `running` run of the task,
and one run in another company that names the task id. A small control
uses 500 classified and 50 unclassified runs.
- Each arm: 2 warm-up runs and 11 measured runs, in alternating order.
| Case | Candidates | Baseline median (min to max) | New median (min to
max) | Speedup | Shared buffers (baseline to new) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Task with nothing to repair | 0 | 37.2 ms (31.1 to 44.1) | 1.21 ms
(0.42 to 1.79) | 30.8x | 34,247 to 138 |
| Task with 3 missing | 3 | 37.8 ms (27.2 to 39.6) | 1.16 ms (0.77 to
2.05) | 32.6x | 34,265 to 148 |
| Task with 25 missing | 25 | 37.5 ms (34.6 to 69.8) | 1.63 ms (1.06 to
3.47) | 23.0x | 34,361 to 154 |
| Small control | 3 | 0.79 ms (0.70 to 1.06) | 0.70 ms (0.48 to 1.70) |
1.1x (neutral) | 314 to 18 |
The `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` execution time for the large cases goes from
approximately 35 ms to approximately 0.15 ms. These are local SQL
measurements. The hosted latency improvement is not yet measured.
The benchmark also checks result equality. For each case, it runs both
queries without a limit and compares every column of every row (as
sorted positional rows). It also checks that the limited batch of 20
comes from the baseline candidate set. All cases match.
Beyond the query, the skip window removes the lookup for most reads of a
task with nothing to repair.
Tests:
```sh
cd server
pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts # 24 passed
pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/task-cold-open.test.ts src/__tests__/liveness.test.ts
pnpm exec tsc --noEmit -p .
```
- The skip-window test fails on the pre-fix `activity.ts` (red), and
passes with this change (green).
- `pnpm verify` asks for broader coverage, because the change adds a
script. Required CI supplies that coverage.
## Risks
- A run that misses its classification after a pass finds nothing for
its task gets repaired up to 10 minutes later. Normal runs get their
classification at finalization, so only the repair path is late.
- The skip map is in memory for each server process. A restart clears
it. That only causes one more lookup for each task.
- The new query keeps the same rows, filter, and limit. The query has no
order, as before. Thus the 20 rows that a pass picks can differ when a
task has more than 20 candidates. Later reads repair the rest in both
versions.
- Low risk. No migration and no API change.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d95fdd8d79 |
feat(observability): span the unnamed gaps in run preparation (#20396)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a task reaches the agent, the server prepares the run: it reads the task, the workspace and the configuration, and then hands the run to the native controller > - With an OTLP endpoint, each preparation step emits a `heartbeat.prepare.<phase>` or `native.controller.<phase>` span > - On a hosted test deployment, 0.3 to 0.5 s of each `task.prepare` sits between those spans, and about 0.5 s more sits between `execution.dispatch_admission` and `native.coordinator.claim` > - Nobody can say which step is slow in that time, so latency work in this area is guesswork > - This pull request adds spans around the existing awaited work in those gaps, with the existing timing helpers and naming conventions > - The benefit is that a trace of a slow preparation now names the step that used the time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The OpenTelemetry trace of task preparation. Today it has unnamed gaps between the named preparation spans. **Subsystem affected** Server: heartbeat run preparation and the native controller (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.ts`). **Current behavior** On a hosted test deployment (8 runs per group), `task.prepare` takes 2.6 to 3.4 s. Between `heartbeat.prepare.runtime_state` and `heartbeat.prepare.run_identity`, about 0.25 s has no span. Between `execution.dispatch_admission` and `native.coordinator.claim`, about 0.5 s has no span, and in one pair of runs it was 1.4 s. Nobody can tell which step used that time. **Proposed behavior** Spans name the existing awaited reads and writes in those gaps. The change adds no reads and records no content. The operator endpoint gate and the no-operation behaviour stay. **Reason and benefit** Latency work in this area needs a measurement. With these spans, a trace of a slow preparation names the step that used the time, so a fix can be confirmed or rejected after deployment. **Breaking changes** None. The change adds span names to the closed list. It changes no API, schema or behaviour. **Additional context** The server uses postgres.js, which the auto-instrumentation does not cover, so database spans do not fill these gaps. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/execution-preparation-timing.ts`: add the new closed phase names. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: add `heartbeat.prepare.*` spans for `chat_retry_admission`, `workspace_selection`, `dependency_readiness`, `issue_checkout`, `instance_settings`, `workspace_context`, `project_context`, `plan_wake_routing`, `routine_environment`, `responsible_user` and `execution_start`. The re-reads of the issue after a checkout use the existing `issue_context` name. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.ts`: add `native.controller.*` spans for `attachment_staging`, `warm_restore`, `span_persistence` (persistence of the preparation spans to the run log) and `state_migration` before the coordinator claim. - `doc/observability.md`: list the new spans. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-preparation-gap-spans.test.ts`: run a real heartbeat through native preparation with an in-memory span exporter. Check that each new span is emitted and that the new preparation spans are children of `task.execution_attempt`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-preparation-gap-spans.test.ts` (fails without the source change, passes with it) - `npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/preparation-timing-context.test.ts src/services/execution-preparation-timing.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-compaction-execution.test.ts` ## Risks - Low risk. The change only wraps existing awaited calls. Values and errors pass through the timing helper unchanged, and a checkout conflict still reaches the same `catch`. - Phases of 50 ms or more inside `heartbeat.prepare.*` are also written to the run log, as for the existing phases. This adds a few run-log rows on slow runs. - Without an OTLP endpoint, the helpers keep their current no-operation behaviour. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs) and extended thinking. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
09241442ea |
fix(server): let a native reviewer approve its review stage (#20373)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution policies can require an independent review stage before a task is done > - A native (Runner) agent that is the active reviewer had no way to record its decision > - `PATCH status: "done"` is refused for a native run that owns the task (#18411), and `paperclip_finish` accepts the report but leaves the stage pending > - The reviewer then searches the API until a deadline, and the task stays in review with nobody able to decide it > - This pull request records the final-stage approval on `PATCH` without releasing the run's lock, and lets the run's own finish report set the final status > - The benefit is that an agent reviewer can actually approve its review stage, in one short turn ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18411 (added the native status guard). Related: #20264 (explicit stage-decision operation, still open; this change is narrower and compatible with it). **What happened?** A native reviewer agent was woken as the active `review` participant. It read the deliverable and wrote its review in about 100 seconds. It then called `paperclip_finish` with `done`. The tool answered "Completion report accepted; the task's configured review stage is still pending". It then tried `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` with `status: "done"` and a comment. The route refused it with `native_run_status_reported_by_finish`. The agent searched the API for 2 more minutes and found no other path. The stage stayed pending. When the run ends with `done`, the status arbiter sees the pending stage and keeps the task in review (`governed_gate_pending`), so the stage can never resolve. **Expected behavior** The active review/approval participant can approve its stage from a native run. The task reaches `done` after the approval. The implementer still cannot approve. A run that is not the active participant still cannot change the task status. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task with an execution policy that has one `review` stage with a native agent participant. 2. Move the task to `in_review` so the stage is pending and the reviewer agent wakes. 3. In the reviewer run, call `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` with `{ "status": "done", "comment": "Approved: ..." }`. 4. Observe `409 native_run_status_reported_by_finish`. Call `paperclip_finish` with `done` and observe that the stage stays pending. ## What Changed - `PATCH /api/issues/:id`: when the requester is the native run that holds the task lock and is the active participant, a `status: "done"` request on the final stage now records the approval decision (`executionState` completed, decision row, activity). The route removes `status` from the write, so the task stays `in_review` and the run keeps its execution lock. The run's `paperclip_finish` report then sets `done` through the normal status arbiter. - An intermediate-stage approval (which would hand the task to the next participant) and every other status change from such a run keep the existing `native_run_status_reported_by_finish` refusal. - `paperclip_finish` from the active participant (`done` or `needs_review`) while its stage is still pending is now rejected with the exact decision path, instead of being accepted with "stage still pending". - The native finalizer now treats the final-stage approval that the run itself recorded (read from the `issue_execution_decisions` row, bound to this run and agent) as the completion authority for its clean `done` report. Before this, a reviewer that cited free-text evidence had its report graded as incomplete, and the task was reopened as `in_progress` with a new wake for the reviewer. Failed verification, blocking remaining work, attention requests, other dispositions, and a still-pending stage keep the old outcome. - The reviewer/approver wake text names the decision path (`PATCH` with `status` and a required decision comment) and says a completion report does not record the decision. A Runner reviewer that needs changes is told to report them with `paperclip_block`, because a changes request from the run that owns the task is a reassignment that stops that run. - The locked review-policy recheck treats the deferred approval as a verdict, so a policy changed to `human_only` before the locked write still refuses it. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`: 5 files, 595 tests pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/native-completion-feedback.test.ts`: 29 tests pass (embedded PostgreSQL), including the decision-row binding for `executionStageApprovedByRun`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/status-arbiter.test.ts server/src/services/native-runtime/native-run-finalizer-telemetry.test.ts server/src/services/native-runtime/native-stale-owner-completion.test.ts`: 72 tests pass. - New route tests fail without the route change (409 instead of 200/422) and pass with it. The new feedback test fails without the feedback change ("Completion report accepted" instead of a rejection). - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` and `-p packages/adapter-utils`: pass. - A route test changes the review policy to `human_only` between the first check and the locked write; the deferred approval is refused (403). - Live full-stack chat eval `task-coordination.independent-review` (Runner, OpenCode) with this change: passed in GitHub Actions run 42705964209 (eval branch with the first two commits cherry-picked). The reviewer run recorded its approval 24 s after its review brief was released, reported `done` 14 s later, and the finalizer set the task to `done` with reason `execution_stage_approved`; total reviewer run 73 s. The earlier run 42702224713 exposed the finalizer evidence issue that the second commit fixes. ## Risks - Low to medium. The change is limited to one request shape: a native run, holding the lock, that is the active participant of a pending final stage, sending `status: "done"`. All other requests keep the old guard. - Between the approval and the finish report, the task shows `in_review` with a completed `executionState`. If the run fails before it reports, the existing native recovery owns the task, as for any other run. - Previous-release story: no persisted shape changes. A reviewer run that started before the deploy could not have recorded a deferred approval (the old route refused it), so the new finalizer input is false for it and the old outcome applies. - Intermediate-stage approvals and changes requests from native runs are still refused by the route. A Runner reviewer reports required changes with `paperclip_block`, which keeps the stage pending for a person. A self-service changes request needs the deferred handoff semantics in #20264. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3cc1032f6a |
fix: deliver saved answers to dependency-blocked tasks (#20363)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people direct agent work through tasks and structured answers. > - Dependencies stop task execution until prerequisite work finishes. > - A person must still be able to answer or redirect the assignee of a blocked task. > - Ordinary comments already get a bounded answer/triage turn. A saved question response has no comment ID, so the same gates reject it. > - Later dispatch also requires an active task and tries to check it out. That conflicts with bounded interaction on a blocked task. > - This pull request verifies the stored human response at each gate and keeps the turn in bounded interaction mode. > - The assignee can receive the answer without starting dependency work or removing its blockers. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19923. That change covers dependency waits and comment retries. This change covers stored interaction responses that have no comment ID. **What happened?** A parent task waits on a parked child. The assignee asked a setup question. After a person answers, the response stays queued. Sending that saved response is refused as `issue_dependencies_blocked`. Ordinary new messages can reach the same assignee. Passing admission alone is insufficient. The dispatch status check rejects a blocked task, and automatic checkout then tries to start work whose prerequisites are unfinished. **Expected behavior** Deliver the stored human answer or confirmation to its requesting assignee as a bounded answer/triage turn. Keep the task blocked and keep its dependency relationships. Preserve current-owner, pause, approval, budget, recovery, and execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a parent task and make a backlog child block it. 2. Save a question on the parent and answer it as a person. 3. Dispatch its resolved-interaction wake, or send the saved answer from the task queue. 4. Observe that the answer does not reach the provider while an ordinary comment can run in answer/triage mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `653ab8b18f76`. This branch is rebased onto master at `0e3fdebea8`. ## What Changed - Verify the stored response by company, task, requesting agent, status, kind, human resolver, and resolution time. A context flag alone is insufficient. - Allow a verified response through dependency admission and claim in the existing bounded interaction mode. - Recheck that response during scheduled retry promotion and final provider dispatch. - Keep bounded responses from checking out the blocked task or setting it to `in_progress`, including when the last blocker finishes during preparation. - Preserve continuation classification through workspace and AI-account resource waits, so the final response and owner checks still run. - Correct the task-case API summary so the existing `case for task` discovery regression passes on the first search page. This fixes a pre-existing failure exposed by full CI, without changing search ranking or assertions. - Ignore obsolete Retry notices after newer conversation work, without acknowledging saved input or changing execution authority. - Document the response contract. Add real PostgreSQL and assembled-heartbeat regressions. ## Verification - Final commit `ba4b337cf1bb0236b7c0a742665b222ee894ff51`: [required CI passed, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42706363120/attempts/2), including typecheck, production build, server/chat tests, Runner checks, and all 8 browser shards. PR status: 59 passing checks and 3 normal skips. - Red: answered questions and accepted/rejected confirmations return no admitted run before the fix. All three new positive cases fail at the dependency gate. A resource-wait retry also reproduces as refused before its gate is fixed. - Green: at delivery revision `9375a603e4`, focused heartbeat integration and classification passed 14 tests; retry scheduling and dispatch safety passed 241 tests. These use real PostgreSQL and controlled adapter and resource-availability boundaries. The wider initial dependency, native-continuation, and queue suites also passed before the final refinements. - Negative cases keep pending, missing, wrong-task, and agent-resolved responses blocked. Changing the response proof immediately before dispatch cancels the run without calling the provider. Policy controls retain the current assignee, task status, and pending approval checks. - Positive cases execute once, leave the parent blocked, preserve the dependency edge, and leave the child in backlog with no child execution. The same saved response survives a resource wait; removing its human proof refuses promotion. - The resource-wait provider-boundary and blocker-completion regressions also failed before their fixes. All 14 focused integration and classifier cases passed at delivery revision `9375a603e4`, including a changed response during retry preparation. - Red: a retained Retry for an older run makes a newer successful conversation display as failed. Green: all 78 database-backed query and interruption-presentation tests pass, including a later real failure and independent queued input controls. - Server layered typecheck and module-boundary checks passed at `11992aad0c7fbaf13e7548d71ee633560bd8bb6f`, before the one-line API summary correction. That CI passed build, typecheck and every browser shard, but exposed the pre-existing case-search assertion and a report-assets test timeout. Final-head CI passed as linked above. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on final commit `ba4b337cf1bb0236b7c0a742665b222ee894ff51`, with no unresolved threads. - The existing API discovery suite reproduced its first-page assertion before the summary correction; all 3 cases pass afterward. The timed-out report-assets privacy test passed locally in isolation and the full support job passed on the final-head rerun. Runner shutdowns interrupted the first attempt; affected jobs were rerun once without code changes. A separate onboarding timeout also passed on that rerun. - `pnpm verify --explain` requests broad CI because the execution contract is a global input. The final CI run supplied that coverage. - Separately recovered the reported staging conversation through an ordinary message and the existing steering control. The agent acknowledged the message and the saved-answer queue drained. The fresh Notebook action subsequently succeeded. This was on the previously deployed revision; it does not claim this code is deployed. ## Risks - This changes admission and dispatch. Each gate checks the persisted response; no caller-supplied marker grants the exception. - The bounded turn does not check out the task, resolve a dependency, or approve another action. Existing pause, ownership, budget, approval, and stopped-execution controls still apply. - Each additional lookup is one primary-key read and runs only for a response on a dependency-blocked path. There is no new polling worker. - No migration is required. Older queued contexts get the exception only when their stored human response still verifies. No prior run or action is replayed by this change. - This PR does not roll out the code to staging. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID, context-window limit, or reasoning-mode label; 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0e3fdebea8 |
perf: remove repeated reads and checks from run preparation (#20358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before each run starts, Core prepares the run: it opens the run log, resolves skills, and prepares the AI runtime > - Every run pays this preparation time before the agent can begin, for a new task or a follow-up, on a cold or a warm computer > - A trace on a hosted test deployment showed some preparation steps that repeat a read or a check that a later step does again > - This pull request removes three of these repeated steps and keeps the check that each one duplicated > - The benefit is that each run starts sooner, with no new mechanism and no change to what a run can see or write ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Run preparation (`task.prepare`). On a hosted test deployment it takes about 2.8 to 3.6 s. Skills preparation has a P50 of 275 ms (1,161 ms on a deployment with more skills and projects). `heartbeat.prepare.run_output` takes 386 to 724 ms. **Subsystem affected** Run logs in object storage (`object-byte-journal`, `object-run-log-store`) and runtime skill delivery (`company-skills`, `skill-execution-content`). **Current behavior** - An object journal claim is preceded by a head read. Its only use is to give the current owner to `claim()`. `claim()` then reads the head again, and it rejects the claim only when the two reads differ. The run log, provider trace capture, and run evidence migration all do this. - Run log `begin` reads the source-prefix proof object for every claim. For a new run log, no proof can exist, so the read always returns "missing". - Each delivered skill version calls `withVersion`, which authorizes the skill again for the run's actor. The skill row was read with the same actor's visibility condition in the same call. With an agent actor this repeats the company source and project permission reads once per version. **Proposed behavior** - `claim()` reads the head once. It still refuses a deleted journal. The conditional head write still rejects any change after that read, and a stale writer is still fenced. - `begin` does not read a proof for a first claim (generation 1). A resumed log still reads and validates its proof, so a changed or malformed proof still fails closed. - Runtime skill delivery authorizes each skill once, when it reads the selected rows. Other callers of `withVersion` keep their own check. **Reason and benefit** Each removed step protects nothing that a later step does not protect again: - Head read: the claim builds on its own head read, and the conditional write enforces it. - Proof read: a proof is written only by a writer that holds this log's head. The journal never removes a head (deletion leaves a tombstone that `claim()` refuses). So a first claim cannot find a proof. - Skill check: every caller of `materializeVersionSnapshot` passes a row that it read through the same actor's visibility condition (`readFullSkillRows`, `getById`, `listFull`). Expected saving per run: two object-storage GETs on `run_output` (about 100 ms each on the trace), and the per-version visibility reads in skills preparation (4 versions per run on the test deployment, about 388 ms per version on a heavier deployment). **Breaking changes** None. `claim()` no longer takes `expectedOwner`. It is an internal API with three callers in this repository, all updated. Refs #20284 (it made run-log tail reads parallel and cached; this change covers the begin path). ## What Changed - `object-byte-journal`: remove the `expectedOwner` input and comparison from `claim()`. Remove the extra head read in its three callers (run log `begin`, provider trace capture, run evidence migration). - `object-run-log-store`: `begin` reads the source-prefix proof only when the claimed head has `generation > 1`. - `skill-execution-content`: split `withVersion` into the access check and `withReadableVersion`. `withVersion` keeps the check for its other callers. - `company-skills`: `materializeVersionSnapshot` uses `withReadableVersion`, because each of its callers already read the skill row under the actor's visibility condition. - Tests: - A new run log `begin` reads `head.json` once and reads no proof. A resumed log reads `head.json` once and reads its proof once. - Runtime skill delivery for an agent actor does no per-version source permission reads. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/object-byte-journal.test.ts src/services/object-run-log-store.test.ts src/services/object-run-log-store-tail-read.test.ts src/services/run-log-store.test.ts src/services/provider-trace-object-store.test.ts` - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/company-skills-runtime-selection.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-runtime-concurrency.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts src/__tests__/managed-skill-content.test.ts` (embedded Postgres) - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck` - Each new test fails on the base commit: the run log test sees 2 head reads and 1 proof read; the skill test sees 1 source permission read per delivered version. - Existing tests still pass for: stale-writer fencing after a takeover, a deleted journal that refuses a claim, a malformed proof that fails closed, and a denied project-scoped skill that is not delivered. - I did not run the full `pnpm test:run`. CI covers it. ## Risks - Low. Two concurrent claims of the same journal: before, the second claim failed when the first published between its two head reads. Now the later claim takes over, and the earlier writer's next append fails with a conflict. This is the same result as when the later claim starts after the first publish. Writer authority (`assertAuthority`) is unchanged. - A skill whose visibility is revoked in the moment between its row read and its materialization in the same call is still delivered for that run. This was already true for a revocation just after the old per-version check. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
380b3d49c0 |
fix(api): make case lookup and audit history discoverable to agents (#20354)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Cases are an experimental saved record with facts, audit history and handoffs, beside the documents on their tasks > - Agents find REST operations with `search_api`, which ranks catalog entries by words in the method, path and summary > - The case read routes had generated summaries such as "GET cases events" and one generic description > - So a chat agent that searched "list company cases" or "case facts history" did not get any case read route on the first page > - In a chat eval, the agent wanted to check the case for "who changed the diagnosis", could not find it, and answered from task document revisions only > - This pull request gives the case read routes real summaries and descriptions, and tells chat agents where a task's case and its fact-change history are > - The benefit is that agents can find and cite a case's audit history when a person asks about it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20265 (case page link guidance for chat agents). **What happened** A person asked a chat agent "Who changed the diagnosis, and what did it say before?" about a case. The agent called `search_api` with "cases list facts history" and "list company cases". The case list, task-to-case lookup and case events routes were not on the first result page. The agent said "Not found", skipped the case audit and answered from the task document revisions only. It did not mention the case fact change or link the case. **Expected behavior** An agent that searches for a company's cases, a task's case or a case's fact-change history finds the matching route on the first page. The catalog says that a `fields_changed` event records who changed the facts and when, but not the previous values. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Cases. 2. Call `searchRunnerApi({ query: "list company cases" })`. 3. See that `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/cases` is not in the five results. The same is true for `GET /api/cases/{id}/events` with "cases list facts history". ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/experimental-api-paths.ts`: add `experimentalApiDocs` with summaries and descriptions for the case list, task-to-case lookup, case read, case events and case document revision routes. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: use those summaries and descriptions when present. Other experimental routes keep the generated summary. The experimental notice stays in every description. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the Cases chat directive now names `GET /api/issues/{issueId}/cases` to find a task's case and `GET /api/cases/{id}/events` for who changed its facts. - `server/src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts`: regression test with the queries from the failed run, and a check on the directive. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts` fails on master (2 failures) and passes with this change. - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/skill-import-discovery.test.ts src/__tests__/primary-agent-guidance.test.ts`: 2148 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports no errors in the changed files. - A live chat eval (`cases.case-history`) runs on a branch with this commit. ## Risks - Low risk. The change edits catalog text and chat guidance only. Route behavior and authorization do not change. - Search ranking changes for queries that use these words. Case routes now rank higher for case queries. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1baac27888 |
feat(server): chat bootstrap reads for instant task opens (#20355)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People open tasks from the task list to see the latest messages and to reply to an agent > - Before the task chat shows its first frame, it waits for about ten separate reads: the issue, recent comments, comment input facts, recent activity, recent runs, interactions, attachments, live runs and the active run > - On a busy instance each read waits for the database, and the slowest read decides when the chat appears. A cold open takes 1.5–4 s on staging > - This pull request adds one read that returns all of that data for up to ten tasks, in the same JSON shapes as the existing endpoints, plus a single-task form > - The benefit is that the task list can preload its top tasks, and a cold open needs one round trip instead of about ten. The UI change is in the stacked pull request ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A task open waits for about ten reads. With the database under load, these reads queue, and a cold open takes seconds. The list cannot preload a task cheaply, because each task costs about ten requests. **Proposed solution** `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues/chat-bootstrap?ids=` returns the first-frame data for up to 10 tasks. `GET /api/issues/:ref/chat-bootstrap` returns it for one task. Each field equals the matching single endpoint's JSON exactly. **Alternatives considered** - Prefetch the existing endpoints for each list row. For 30 rows this sends about 210 requests to a database that is already the bottleneck. - A new projection with different shapes. This would duplicate client merge logic, and freshness rules could drift. **Roadmap alignment** This is part of the task-loading performance plan in #20276. It follows #20277, #20284 and #20286. ## What Changed - `packages/shared`: - `ISSUE_CHAT_BOOTSTRAP_MAX_IDS` (10). - `issueChatBootstrapQuerySchema`: UUIDs or identifiers, normalized, deduplicated and strict. - The `IssueChatBootstrap` and `IssueChatBootstrapItem` types. - New `server/src/services/issue-chat-bootstrap.ts`: - Resolves the refs inside the company and applies the `issue:read` decision to each task. - Reads the tasks with a concurrency of 2, and returns them in request order. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: - The core issue read and the recent-comments read are now shared helpers, so the bootstrap and the single endpoints use the same code. The core view keeps its Server-Timing header. - Adds the batch route and the single-task route. - Excludes the single-task route from the issue ETag middleware, so a fetch without validators always gets a 200 with `Cache-Control: private, no-store`. - New `server/src/services/issue-run-presence.ts`: - The live-runs and active-run payload builders, moved from `agents.ts` without change. - The existing routes call them, and their behavior is unchanged. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: entries for both routes. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-chat-bootstrap-routes.test.ts` passes 17 tests. They run on embedded Postgres with privacy enforcement on. They cover: - Each field deep-equals its single endpoint's JSON, for an ordinary task and for a conversation task. - The single-task route equals the batch item, by UUID and by identifier. It is never answered with a 304. - Items keep the request order, with UUIDs and identifiers mixed. - Private, other-company, missing and unknown tasks are omitted, and none of their data appears. The single-task route returns 404 for them. - Malformed, extra or repeated parameters return 400. More than 10 ids also return 400. - A task-bridge key gets 403. - A 10-task request writes nothing: no inserts, updates or deletes, and no activity-log or comment changes. - The issue, agent, activity, live-run, cold-open, summaries, ETag and OpenAPI route suites pass: 56 files, 1,771 tests. - `cd server && pnpm typecheck` passes. - Query cost, local embedded Postgres, one 10-task request: about 49 SQL statements per task, 55–130 ms in total. A test fails if it goes above 60 per task. ## Risks - **Database load:** the stacked UI preloads up to 30 tasks, about 1,500 statements at idle time. This is the same work as opening those tasks, but it is done before the person clicks. The work runs in sequential requests of 10, with 2 tasks at a time. Most of the cost is existing run decoration. Live runs and the active run decorate the same running run, so that work runs twice. Sharing it is a follow-up. - **Stricter access:** live runs and the active run now apply the `issue:read` policy inside this endpoint. The existing routes keep their company-only check. - Hidden tasks are returned, as `GET /issues/:id` returns them. - No migration and no persisted-state change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used in Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser automation, file editing, subagents). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
653ab8b18f |
fix(chat): answer "my inbox" from the person's Mine list (#20334)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agent Chat lets a person ask an agent about their own work, such as
"what in my inbox needs my attention?"
> - Agents find API routes through the agent API catalog, which is built
from the OpenAPI registry
> - The catalog described `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` as the current
agent's assigned items and listed no `userId` parameter. The skill
reference for the route is keyed with `?userId={}`, so it never attached
to the catalog entry
> - A chat agent called the route without `userId`, got 400, and then
answered from an unscoped company task search. It named company work
that is not in the person's inbox and did not link the person's Mine
list
> - This pull request documents the route as the person's Mine list with
a required `userId`, and adds one chat guidance paragraph for inbox
questions
> - The benefit is that inbox answers use the person's own task scope
and link their Mine list
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A person asked a CEO chat agent: "What in my inbox needs my attention
today?" The agent called `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` without
`userId` and got 400. Then it listed every company task, including an
unrelated agent-created maintenance task. It said the person's inbox was
board-only and did not link the Mine list.
**Expected behavior**
The agent reads the person's Mine list with `GET
/api/agents/me/inbox/mine?userId=<person>`. It answers from those tasks
only, links each task it cites, and links the Mine list at
`/<prefix>/inbox/mine`. If the read fails, it says so and links Mine.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As a board user, participate in some tasks. Let an agent create an
unrelated task in the same company.
2. In Agent Chat with the CEO, ask "What in my inbox needs my attention
today?"
3. The agent calls the Mine route without `userId` (400) and lists all
company tasks.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` now
has a summary and description that say it is a person's Mine list, not
the agent's own queue. It documents the required `userId` query
parameter and the optional `status` parameter, and the 400 response.
- `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: one chat guidance
paragraph. For inbox questions, read the Mine route with the
`authorUserId` of the person's message, answer from those tasks only,
and link `[Mine](/<prefix>/inbox/mine)` (it opens the Mine view in every
layout). If the read fails, say so and link Mine.
- Regression tests in `openapi-routes.test.ts` and
`agent-conversations.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts` (in `server/`): 107 passed. The
two new tests fail without the source change.
- `npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: 2075
passed.
- Live chat eval `inbox-search.show-my-work` on the eval candidate with
this commit: see the comment below for the run result.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is catalog text, one query schema in the OpenAPI
document, and one chat guidance paragraph. The route behavior does not
change.
- The chat prompt grows by about 500 characters.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7f55323abb |
fix(recovery): end a remote workspace epoch whose writer died during preparation (#20346)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A task with a remote workspace prepares that workspace before the
run selects its runtime, and preparation marks the workspace epoch dirty
with the run as its writer
> - If the server is killed during preparation, the run never selected a
runtime and never started provider work, but the dirty epoch remains
> - Failed-workspace preservation, the path that resolves a dead
writer's dirty epoch, applies to native runs only, so nothing owned this
epoch
> - The dirty epoch kept the dead run's sandbox lease as a pending
export and held the workspace against the task's retry, so the task
never recovered
> - This pull request lets the ownership reconciler end such an epoch at
the last committed save
> - The benefit is that a restart during workspace preparation no longer
wedges the task
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In a restart-chaos wave on Daytona (a remote workspace that clones a
real repository), the controller was killed while each run's first
workspace save was in flight. That save is now settled by #20326. Each
run ended `process_lost` with a bounded retry, and both runs were still
in `execution_stage: preparing` with `runtime_mode_resolved_at: null`.
The workspace authority stayed `dirty: true`, `snapshotId: null`, with
the dead run as writer. The dead run's environment lease was proven
owner-gone but was refused by its settle as `workspace_export_pending`,
and the reconciler reported `I2_settled` violations. The retries stayed
`queued` until the test harness deleted the environment 21 minutes
later. Then they failed `remote_workspace_execution_required`, because
the environment was gone.
**Expected behavior**
When a writer dies before runtime selection, its unsaved files are only
the restored source and preparation output, because no agent turn ran.
Recovery must end that epoch at the last committed save, so the lease
settles and the retry restores the workspace into a new directory. A
writer that reached runtime selection must keep its existing recovery.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a task whose agent uses Paperclip Runner with a remote sandbox
workspace.
2. Kill the server while the run is still preparing the workspace (for
example during its first save).
3. After the restart, the run ends `process_lost` and its retry is
queued, but the workspace stays dirty and owned by the dead run, the
lease stays active, and the retry never starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
16e9157577 |
fix(api): publish agent-grant access operations as board_or_agent in the API catalog (#20349)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents read the API catalog (`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`) to decide which operations they may call. The `x-paperclip-authorization` actor tells them who performs each operation. > - The invite, join-request and member-list routes admit agents that hold the matching company grant (`users:invite`, `joins:approve`, `users:manage_permissions`). > - The catalog still listed these operations as board-only. > - In a chat eval, a CEO agent with `users:invite` read `actor: "board"` on `POST /invites`, treated it as a final boundary, and told the person it could not invite anyone. > - This pull request publishes those operations as `board_or_agent` and names the grant each needs. It also names the Members page on member edits, which stay board-only. > - The benefit is that a granted agent uses the permission the board gave it, and agents without the grant still get a 403. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A board granted the CEO agent `users:invite` with `PATCH /api/agents/:id/permission-grants`. The person asked in chat: "Invite alex@example.test to join this company." The agent searched the API catalog. It found `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/invites` with `x-paperclip-authorization: { actor: "board" }`. It concluded that invites are board-only and did not try the call. The route itself accepts agents with `users:invite`. **Expected behavior** The catalog shows `board_or_agent` for operations whose route accepts an agent with a company grant. The description names the grant. The agent creates the invite and returns the join link. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Grant an agent `users:invite`. 2. Read `GET /api/openapi.json` and find `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/invites`. 3. See `x-paperclip-authorization: { actor: "board" }`, although `assertCompanyPermission` admits the agent. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at the merge base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Any. Found in the runner full-stack chat eval `access.invite-teammate`. ## What Changed - Remove six operations from `BOARD_ONLY_OPERATIONS`: `POST`/`GET /companies/{companyId}/invites`, `GET /join-requests`, `POST /join-requests/{requestId}/approve` and `/reject`, and `GET /members`. Their routes use `assertCompanyPermission`, which admits agents with the grant. - Add descriptions that name the grant for each operation. The invite description also says it returns a shareable `inviteUrl` (no email field), and that membership starts only after acceptance. - Member edits (`PATCH /members/{memberId}`, `/role-and-grants`, `/permissions` and `POST /archive`) stay board-only. The route guard requires board access, and a test keeps the catalog in line with that guard. - Describe those member edits as board-only even for agents holding `users:manage_permissions`, and name the Members page (`/<prefix>/company/settings/members`) where a person makes the change. The member list description says the same. An agent then links the page instead of searching for an agent route. - Add a regression test in `openapi-routes.test.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 43 passed. The new test also checks that the Members page is named. With master's `openapi.ts`, the new test fails (`expected { actor: 'board' } to deeply equal { actor: 'board_or_agent' }`). - `src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` — 2075 passed. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes catalog metadata only. Route guards do not change. An agent without the grant still gets 403. - Agents with these grants will now attempt these operations instead of stopping. That is the intended behavior of the grant. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c67909cb0f |
fix: keep tool approvals valid through OAuth refresh and delayed review (#20340)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agent work and approve app actions. > - An approval must bind the action that the person reviewed. > - OAuth access tokens can expire while that person is away. > - The old target snapshot treated each token refresh as a new authorization. It also imposed a one-hour review deadline. > - This pull request separates token renewal from authorization identity and keeps the human decision durable. > - Current access, the reviewed arguments, meaningful target changes, task closure, and execution receipts still control dispatch. > - People can approve later without repeating a decision after routine connection maintenance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pending app action returned `approved_tool_target_changed` after its OAuth tokens refreshed. The tool and connection settings were unchanged. The same card also expired after one hour. A sign-in problem could discard an accepted decision before provider dispatch. **Expected behavior** The original card remains reviewable after routine OAuth refresh and a server restart. A later approval runs the exact reviewed action once. A connection repair preserves the decision while Paperclip verifies the same authorization. Meaningful changes require a new review. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect an OAuth MCP app and configure an action to require approval. 2. Request the action, then refresh its access and refresh tokens before approving. 3. Approve the original card. Before this change, it returns HTTP 409 even when the authorization is unchanged. 4. Wait more than one hour. Before this change, the card expires without a task-specific deadline. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `76254ead2229`. The final branch is rebased onto current master. ## What Changed - Add versioned approval target comparison. New snapshots bind credential identity epochs, consent, permissions, ownership, connection configuration, tool contracts, and credential references. Authenticated OAuth refresh preserves identity. Manual credential replacement does not. - Remove the implicit one-hour deadline from ordinary app action reviews. Keep explicit deadlines and terminal-task expiry. Synchronize the nullable interaction deadline in shared contracts and UI. - Keep accepted, undispatched actions when sign-in is required. Show a saved-approval repair state. Resume on committed connection changes after target and access revalidation, without an idle retry loop. - Preserve the existing execution claim, result receipt, and uncertain-outcome no-replay rules. - Explain meaningful target changes without inviting the person to retry the stale card. - Add a production task-thread Storybook example and document compatibility and recovery behavior. ## Verification - Red: production-refresher invalid-grant handling and formal-approval withdrawal during a sign-in wait also reproduced as failing regressions before their fixes. - Red: before implementation, the local OAuth HTTP fixture failed for both public and confidential clients with `approved_tool_target_changed` after token refresh. - Green: the extended fixture passes for public and confidential clients with personal and shared grants. It covers actual local HTTP token exchanges, multiple refreshes, a rebuilt gateway, an ended originating run, approval after 25 hours, duplicate approval, preserved sharing arguments, sign-in waiting, and event-driven repair. The gateways use the production OAuth refresher; an invalid refresh preserves the accepted decision before provider dispatch. Omitted-scope responses cover equivalent scope-reporting changes. The provider is an isolated local fixture, not a deployed Notebook service. - Negative controls refuse changed consent, scopes, tool definition, destination, and manual credential replacement before provider execution. - Existing gateway service, connected-tool acceptance, secret owner, secret service, unsigned-review queue, and connection-health suites passed. Explicit-deadline fixtures still prove expiry behavior, including deadlines on accepted sign-in waits. A withdrawn formal approval cancels a waiting action before connection recovery. - Approval card, task-chat, error-copy and target-comparison tests passed. Server and UI typechecks passed. Token gates and Storybook catalog checks passed. - Inspected the new saved-approval repair card in local Storybook using the production task thread. It shows a reconnect link and no second approval button or false running state. - `pnpm verify --explain` returned exit 2 and requested broad CI coverage. [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42677855507) passed on `eb4f1c7caa9ee6e802c314ffc5eadec475a5de0c`, including build, typecheck/release registry, general and serialized tests, and all eight browser shards. - Greptile reviewed the same final head at 5/5. Both findings from the first review are fixed and their threads resolved; no open follow-ups remain. ## Risks - No database migration is needed. The new comparison reuses the vault identity epoch. Only authenticated OAuth refresh code can preserve that epoch; HTTP credential-write schemas cannot select that behavior. - Earlier signed requests keep their original exact-version checks and saved deadlines. Already-expired cards are not revived. A historical card whose credentials already changed needs a fresh review. - A new consent, account, permission set, destination, or manually replaced credential must not inherit the old authorization. Reconnection continues automatically only when revalidation proves the same saved authorization. - The interaction enrichment now permits a null deadline. Existing string deadlines remain valid. The web client and shared validator change together. - This PR does not deploy to staging or perform a live Notebook publication. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID, context-window limit, or reasoning-mode label; 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a67b936885 |
fix(server): redact invitation bearer paths from HTTP logs (#20343)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People join a company through an invitation link. The link carries a bearer token in its URL path. > - The HTTP logger removes query secrets and URL user information. It keeps the path. > - So invitation bearer tokens reach the HTTP log in the request URL, the log message, and the referrer header. > - PR #17848 fixed this, but it did not merge. Since then, #13742 changed the same redactor file. > - This pull request carries the #17848 commits onto current master. The original author is kept on both commits. > - The benefit is that invitation tokens do not stay in HTTP logs. The chat eval for membership management can then accept a real invitation safely. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Supersedes #17848 (same commits, rebased onto current master after #13742). **What happened?** The HTTP logger writes invitation bearer tokens to logs. A synthetic POST to `/api/invites/<token>/accept` puts the token in `req.url`, in the log message, and in the `Referer`/`Referrer` header record. **Expected behavior** Logs keep the invitation route, the method, and the HTTP status. Logs do not keep the bearer token. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out master. 2. Run `server/src/__tests__/logger-invitation-redaction.test.ts` from this PR. 3. The synthetic token appears in the request URL, the message, and the referrer. 12 tests fail on master. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at the merge base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Source server. The tests use a disposable local HTTP listener. They use no database and no provider. ## What Changed - Remove the bearer segment from `/api/invites/<token>/...`, `/invites/<token>/...`, and `/invite/<token>` URLs, including mounted paths and absolute URLs. - Apply the same URL policy to `referer` and `referrer` request headers. - Keep record IDs on the non-token revoke route `/invites/<inviteId>/revoke` and on company-scoped invite routes. - Add regression tests through the real HTTP logger for 202, 400 and 500 responses, with both referrer header spellings. - Original work by @cryppadotta in #17848. This PR only rebases it onto master. ## Verification - From `server`: `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/logger-invitation-redaction.test.ts src/__tests__/redact-sensitive.test.ts src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts` — 46 passed. - With the master `logger.ts` and `redact-sensitive.ts`, the same new tests fail: 12 failed. - `http-log-aborted-response`, `cloud-principal-log` and `setup-token-session` tests pass locally. Some other HTTP-log suites could not load locally because workspace package builds were missing in this worktree. CI covers them. ## Risks - Low risk. Referrer query and fragment values are now removed from request logs, as they already are for request URLs. This removes some diagnostic detail to protect secrets. - A route that uses `/invites/<id>/...` for a non-bearer record ID, other than `revoke`, now shows `[REDACTED]` in logs for that segment. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution, used to rebase and verify. The original change was authored in #17848. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0f71ab796e |
fix(issues): name the existing order in dependency-cycle denials (#20342)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Tasks can wait for other tasks through blocking dependencies, and the server rejects a dependency that closes a cycle > - The rejection said only "Blocking relations cannot contain cycles" > - In chat, an agent asked to "make Website wait for Design too" got this 422 while Design already waited for Website > - The agent had no sign that the existing order must stay, so it guessed a swap: it removed Design's dependency on Website and added the reverse > - This pull request makes the 422 name the existing order, say that nothing changed, and say to ask the requester which order they want > - The benefit is that agents keep the existing prerequisite and ask the person, instead of silently reversing it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A chat agent was asked to make Website also wait for Design. Design already waited for Website. The server correctly returned 422 "Blocking relations cannot contain cycles". The agent then removed the existing Design-waits-for-Website dependency and added Website-waits-for-Design. The person lost the existing prerequisite without being asked. **Expected behavior** The rejection keeps both saved dependency sets as they were. The agent explains the conflict with the real task names and asks the person which order they want before it changes any dependency. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create tasks Website and Design. Make Design blocked by Website. 2. PATCH Website with `blockedByIssueIds: [Design]`. 3. See that the 422 says only "Blocking relations cannot contain cycles", with no task names and no next step. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: the cycle check now records the path it finds. The 422 message names the existing chain by task identifier (for example "COM-2 waits for COM-1, so COM-1 cannot also wait for COM-2"). It never includes titles, because the chain can pass through tasks the caller cannot read. Identifiers are the same fields that locked relation stubs already show. It says no dependencies changed and the existing ones are kept. It says not to remove or reverse an existing dependency, and to ask the requester which order they want. - The 422 `details` now carry `code: "blocking_cycle"`, the updated issue, the requested blocker, and the existing chain as ids and identifiers. - `server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`: a regression test checks the message and details for a direct cycle, the chain text for a two-step cycle through a task with a private title, that no title appears in the error, and that the existing dependency is unchanged. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` passes (152 tests). The new test fails on the old message. - Chat eval `task-coordination.reject-dependency-cycle` ran end to end with the first commit (run 42678089404, which named tasks by identifier and title). The agent kept Design waiting for Website and asked the person which order to keep with a question card. The saved dependency sets did not change. The second commit removes titles from the message; the rest of the text is the same. ## Risks - Low risk. The status code (422) and the first words of the message do not change. Clients that match the full old message exactly would no longer match. No code in this repository does that. - The check reads the identifiers of the issues in the chain only when it rejects a request, so the success path is unchanged. - The error can show the identifier of a task that the caller cannot read. Relation responses already show this identifier in locked stubs, so this shows no new data. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |