mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 05:16:50 +01:00
cebcd9c427e58e0d6731102945b60603860f22dc
1307
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
cebcd9c427 |
fix(server): retain database precision in effect recovery cursor
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cbf7306989 |
Merge expiry paging repair into effect recovery
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> * codex/sleep-10-decision-expiry: fix(server): preserve expiry paging timestamp precision |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e89c682ba5 |
fix(server): preserve expiry paging timestamp precision
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a5b5994c1d |
fix(server): recover decision effects from saved claim deadlines
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
67bf465e3b |
docs: record decision sleep PRs and effect recovery audit
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
63b58cc26f |
test(server): bound and qualify decision expiry lifecycle
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5f96892a58 |
fix(server): serialize decision outcomes and bound continuation shutdown
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
66bbef521e |
fix(server): wake decision continuations from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ea1fbd8e1 |
docs: record eighth sleep PR and decision continuation audit
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
692e3ee02c |
fix(server): wake archive notification delivery from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0956883a84 |
fix(server): wake tool-review card repair from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
db2420ef1a |
docs: record sixth sleep PR and projection follow-up
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
85003a7ac4 |
docs: record interrupted-tool recovery contracts and verification
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7a1cf03e62 |
test(server): require settled outcomes for approved Test-tab calls
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1cdb26a68b |
fix(server): separate tool outcome persistence from provider errors
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5dcd193d35 |
fix(server): recover approved tool actions from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
38c4e28135 |
docs: audit approved tool recovery ownership for next sleep slice
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ce6a260a83 |
test(server): qualify pending review expiry lifecycle
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
36e1c9f23e |
Merge branch 'codex/sleep-03-gateway-credential-expiry' into codex/sleep-04-tool-review-expiry
* codex/sleep-03-gateway-credential-expiry: perf(server): bound gateway expiry deadline discovery Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c5c53fc43f |
perf(server): bound gateway expiry deadline discovery
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
77d6a3bdc2 |
docs: record stack evidence and separate tool-review obligations
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
75332b9641 |
fix(server): schedule gateway credential expiry from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fac808eabc |
fix(server): drive secret-proposal expiry from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a592550336 |
fix(server): schedule custom-image setup expiry from committed changes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
785d54636e |
Delete re-homed isolated clones when their contents are reproducible (#17410)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Isolated task workspaces are Git worktrees on the server disk, and the terminal workspace reaper keeps that disk usage bounded > - #17369 moves old workspaces off their private per-issue clones onto the project's shared clone and then deletes the private clone > - On one instance, the first live sweep moved 12 workspaces but deleted none of their clones (about 600 MB each), and 3 workspaces could not move because their restore point was "too large" > - The kept clones are not referenced by any workspace, so no other cleanup removes them > - This pull request replaces the clone check with a real reproducibility check, sweeps the orphaned clones, lifts the restore point limits for local transfers, and fixes a false `source_identity_changed` > - The benefit is that the disk space #17369 was meant to reclaim is reclaimed, without deleting unique work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17369. Bug report described in-PR (bug report template). **What happened?** On one instance, with `PAPERCLIP_ISOLATED_SOURCE_REHOME_ENABLED=true` and dry run off, the first sweep re-homed 12 workspaces, skipped 5 with `live_or_unresolved_consumer` and 3 with `restore_point_too_large`. No clone was removed: 11 logged `cloneKeptReason: "clone_checkout_has_files"` and 1 logged `"source_identity_changed"`. Each clone's own checkout was clean (`git status --porcelain --untracked-files=all` empty). Its only history that the shared clone lacked was remote branches and release tags that the shared clone never fetched, which exist on the remote. An operator removed 11 clones by hand after verifying them. **Expected behavior** A re-homed clone whose checkout is clean and whose local history is in the shared clone or on the remote is deleted. A clone with real unique work is kept. Workspaces whose changes exceed the upload limits still move, because the transfer is local. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a project repository whose `.gitignore` (or the clone's `info/exclude`) contains `.paperclip/`, with a release tag on a commit that is not on any branch. 2. Re-home an isolated workspace of that repository with #17369. 3. The old worktree is removed, the empty `.paperclip/worktrees` directory stays, and `git ls-files --others --ignored --directory` lists `.paperclip/`. The clone is kept with `clone_checkout_has_files`. Without the ignore line, the local release tag keeps it with `unique_clone_history`. 4. Add a file larger than 64 MiB to a workspace. The move skips with `restore_point_too_large`. **Paperclip version or commit:** `master` at |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
71c04c0bfb |
fix: stop idle environment cleanup polling (#17145)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent environments can leave pending teardown or unverified provider resources. > - Recovery must preserve those resources until ownership and workspace safety allow cleanup. > - Empty maintenance scans keep an idle instance and its database active. > - The existing rows, transaction signals, and scheduler can represent the actual recovery obligation. > - This pull request schedules pending cleanup and historical verification only while work remains. > - An empty or fully verified instance stops these scans without losing cleanup recovery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The server scanned pending environment cleanup on its maintenance tick. The run reaper also scanned it even when it recovered no runs or active leases. Historical resource verification scanned every five minutes, including when all history already had valid cleanup proof. **What did you expect?** Writes should wake cleanup. Pending rows, deferred orphan buffers, and unverified history should retain recovery deadlines. When none remain, these workers should make no periodic database or provider calls. **Steps to reproduce** Start a configured instance with no pending leases and fully verified history. Leave it idle. Observe repeated pending-cleanup and historical-verification reads from the maintenance paths. Related: #17106 supplies the preceding login-cleanup migration. #13523 improves lease-reaper query indexes. #16809 addresses reusable-sandbox recovery authority. This PR keeps those authority checks in their existing services. ## What Changed - Register two workers with the existing delivery coordinator and shared scheduler. Remove their unconditional maintenance-tick calls. Run the reaper's inline pending cleanup only after it recovers actual work. - Add commit-aware signals to the audited lease and custom-image writers. Existing transactions notify directly; other writers use one small transaction helper. No tables or migrations are added. - Derive pending cleanup deadlines from the existing row backoff and retry or claim metadata. Retain a historical retry only while an unverified candidate exists. - Register unwritten orphan buffers across runtimes that share the database handle. Buffer registration wakes recovery without a database connection. Load the existing spool at startup and retry failed or capacity-limited loads while needed. - Isolate spool failures per runtime. Attempt all buffers and persisted pending rows, then retain a retry for any failed spool. - Document producer coverage, idle behavior, and remaining blockers. Update the sleep inventory. - Repair the inherited CSS-recovery E2E test: the current build no longer emits task-page CSS. Exercise the actual lazy environment stylesheet, preserving real network failure, recovery, and bounded reload assertions. ## Verification October 24 integration update: merged current master and resolved the runtime/spool conflicts. Preserve serialized ingestion of records appended after startup. Plugin replacement failures now register deferred recovery with an idle hold; concurrent callers share one persistence attempt. The producer audit includes this new writer. - Focused cleanup selection: 270 tests now pass across five suites. The initial run lacked a built plugin SDK and executed no tests; building the SDK fixed setup. The new concurrent-flush assertion then reproduced duplicate rows; a single-flight guard fixed it and all 18 plugin integration tests passed on rerun. - Server typecheck passed. After review fixes, all 211 tests across the cleanup worker, real orphan spool, environment runtime, and plugin integration suites passed. These overlap the earlier focused selection. The rate-limit test initially expected a write after twenty idle minutes to wait; corrected it to assert that subsequent writes cannot accelerate the five-minute cadence. - Review fixes preserve retries for unreadable spool directories/records, keep historical provider checks off the startup wait while joining them at shutdown, and restore their independent five-minute minimum spacing. The complete [CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40108905033) passed on final commit `79ae1589c3c7b924db4bedb337d0c7ed3d95020b`, including all E2E shards, server/workspace tests, runner checks, typecheck, build/public-install verification, and security checks. - CI found a stale E2E asset matcher: `issue-detail-*.css` is no longer emitted. Both corrected browser tests passed against a fresh production UI build and disposable local instance. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on that same final commit, with all review threads resolved. Previous implementation verification: - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - New PostgreSQL worker suite: 12 tests passed. Covers quiet configured state, verified history, writes, outer commit and rollback, retry deadlines, restart, drain, deferred orphan buffers, spool failure, pagination, provider uncertainty, shutdown, and the idle run-reaper path. - Worker and environment runtime suites after review fix: 183 tests passed. A new assertion reproduced buffer starvation before the fix. Updated transaction fault injection and isolated simulated-instance database handles. Server typecheck also passed after the fix. - Run-recovery suites: 58 tests passed. Pending-cleanup suite: 38 tests passed after updating the logging fixture to seed real orphan recovery; an idle reaper no longer invokes cleanup. - Stop and workspace-recovery integration selection: 268 tests passed; two live-provider tests skipped by their environment gate. This overlaps the worker suite and is not an additional unique-test count. - Started the full local `pnpm test:run`, then stopped that older duplicate run after CI found the fixture mismatch. The corrected 38-test suite passed locally. The full sharded [CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39678174479) passed on final commit `fc0ff3c4554ca4190a8b0b81ec06ef7065b8ad2c`, including build, typecheck, runner, server, workspace, and E2E checks. This is not a claim that the local full run completed. ## Risks - Missing a future producer signal could delay discovery until restart. The producer audit is documented in `doc/idle-environment-cleanup.md`. Independent SQL writers and another server process are outside the existing process-local notification contract. - Historical candidates blocked by ownership or provider uncertainty keep a five-minute retry until they can be verified. Provider destruction, claim fencing, Stop retention, and workspace safety remain controlled by their existing services. - This does not remove orphan-active discovery or legacy shutdown settlement from run recovery. Active custom-image expiry is also still periodic. External wake coverage does not change. - Local tests prove these workers become quiet and recover. They do not establish deployed instance suspension or fleet cost savings. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code execution and reasoning. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (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 Leach
|
e5c9e60c5a | Avoid session resets when reusing default task directories (#17419) | ||
|
Nicky Leach
|
f7716ec65b | Allow exact warm-state reads during retained task retirement (#17418) | ||
|
Nicky Leach
|
6b4bdc515b | Fix GitHub ownership checks for warm plugin tasks (#17417) | ||
|
|
515ff0f284 |
fix(server): report which S3 call failed in storage error events (#17424)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server keeps attachments and other files in a storage provider. Hosted instances use the S3 provider. > - Sentry received `SignatureDoesNotMatch` errors from the S3 provider on two staging hosts. > - The events have only AWS SDK stack frames. They do not show which S3 call failed, the HTTP status, or the S3 request ID. > - Without these facts, we cannot find the cause or make a safe fix. > - This pull request records a small, fixed-shape failure record on the S3 error and sends it with the Sentry event. > - The benefit is that the next event shows the failed operation and the provider request ID, and no private data goes to Sentry. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The S3 storage provider threw `SignatureDoesNotMatch` four times on staging. The Sentry events do not identify the S3 operation or the caller. **Expected behavior** A storage provider failure in Sentry shows which storage call failed and the provider's correlation fields. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure the S3 storage provider against an endpoint that rejects the request signature. 2. Read, write, check, or delete a stored file. 3. Look at the Sentry event. It has no first-party stack frame and no operation name. No public GitHub issue exists. I searched open and closed pull requests for `SignatureDoesNotMatch` and storage failure diagnostics. No pull request covers this. ## What Changed - Add `server/src/storage/failure-diagnostics.ts`. It keeps a frozen, fixed-shape record for each failed storage error in a `WeakMap`. - Add `server/src/storage/s3-failure.ts`. It wraps each S3 call and records the operation, error code, HTTP status, request ID, and SDK attempt count. It reads only data properties. A value that does not match its bounded format becomes `unknown` or `null`. - Wrap `PutObject`, `GetObject`, `HeadObject`, `DeleteObject`, `CreateMultipartUpload`, `UploadPart`, and `CompleteMultipartUpload`. - In `captureException`, add the `storage_operation` and `storage_error_code` tags and a `storage_failure` context to the event of that error only. The original error and its default grouping do not change. - Document the new context in `doc/observability.md`. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/storage-s3-failure-diagnostics.test.ts src/__tests__/sentry.test.ts` (in `server/`): 37 passed, 5 skipped. The skipped tests are the existing real-SDK tests, which need an environment flag. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/storage-s3-multipart.test.ts src/__tests__/storage-local-provider.test.ts`: 8 passed. - The new tests use a local HTTP server that returns a real S3 `SignatureDoesNotMatch` XML body with a `StringToSign` field. The tests make sure that the record has the operation, code, status and request ID, and that it does not contain the private string. - I typechecked the changed source files with a scoped `tsc` project. They have no errors. I could not run the full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` in my sandbox: it has a 4 GiB memory limit and no `cargo` for the runner binary. CI runs the full checks. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds a `try`/`catch` that records data and throws the same error again. Storage behavior, not-found handling, and HTTP responses do not change. - Secret-sensitive routes replace the error before reporting, so those events do not get the record. This is intended. - The record never contains the bucket, object key, endpoint, credentials, error message, or provider response body. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic. Used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit) and extended reasoning. ## 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1a79522a4e |
perf: narrow run-to-issue authorization reads (#17405)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Run pages show links to issues associated with a run. > - The issue-link route checks the run's company and issue visibility before it reads those links. > - That check needs four binding fields, but the route reads the full run. > - Full runs can include large prompt, output, and result fields. > - This pull request uses the existing narrow authorization read. > - The route transfers less database data and keeps its permission checks and response contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** `GET /api/heartbeat-runs/:runId/issues` calls `heartbeat.getRun` for a permission check. Its consumers only need the run ID, company ID, scope kind, and issue ID. The full read also fetches context, output excerpts, result data, and runtime metadata. Repeated link reads pay for that unused data. **Proposed solution** Use `getRunReadAccess`, the existing four-field read from #17348. Keep authentication, company access, company-scope authorization, run issue visibility, and linked-issue filtering in their current owners. Keep the existing empty response for missing and inaccessible runs. **Alternatives considered** A new query contract is unnecessary because the existing read provides all required fields. A permission cache could become stale. Changing the full run reader could affect consumers that need run details. **Roadmap alignment** This is a focused improvement to an existing route. It adds no feature, route, provider, cache, or background work. Searches for run-issue links, narrow run authorization, and `getRunReadAccess` found no open duplicate. Related work: #17348. ## What Changed - Change the issue-link route to use the existing narrow run read. - Reject full run reads in the route tests. Cover readable company and issue scopes, denied issue access, missing bindings, anonymous requests, and the missing/cross-company empty response. - Add a developer note about the read contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-state.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts`: 126 tests passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - The route tests use the real run visibility helper with only the four binding fields. The full reader throws if a route calls it. The existing run-state suite checks the exact four-column selection and covers database wiring with disposable Postgres. - `git diff --check`: passed. Reviewed the committed diff for secrets and private identifiers before push. - Apex review: 5/5 on exact head `888a4ce9ea88bb2b284eb5e28fafc01b6f48b386`, completed successfully, with zero review threads. - Full current-head CI passed: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. [Workflow attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40051399577/attempts/2). [Initial serialized shard failure](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40051399577/job/120744710081): the first company-history case in unchanged `agent-live-run-routes.test.ts` hit its 15-second timeout; the shard had 391 passing tests and one failure. That file, its agent route, the heartbeat state reader, and the service export are unchanged from base. The five company-history cases pass on unchanged base `9fb28d06ffebbb615f413765078aeeb7c4291311` (9.12s suite) and this head (8.29s suite). They also passed in the 126-test focused run. The timeout was not reproduced locally; its cause is not established. Only the failed shard was retried on the same head. It passed in attempt 2. This establishes recovery; the initial timeout remains in this record and its cause is unproven. - The prior local full-suite failures and baseline triage remain documented in #17384. No new local full-suite pass is claimed here. This change uses focused local tests and the full current-head CI gate. - No hosted user journey, staging deployment, production deployment, or billed savings is claimed for this follow-up. ## Risks - Run visibility depends on the canonical `scopeKind` and `issueId`. The existing helper returns those same fields. It does not use prompt or result data for access decisions. - Linked issues still pass the existing SQL visibility filter. Missing and cross-company runs still return `200 []`. Anonymous requests still fail before the run read. - The database query count stays the same. The change reduces data selected for this authorization read. - No schema or API response changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, 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 - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
70de7d49e9 |
Migrate standalone nested clones onto the shared project clone (#17407)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Each task runs in a git worktree. Extra project repositories sit in
the task under `.paperclip-repositories/`.
> - #17382 made new nested checkouts git worktrees of one shared clone
per project repository. Existing standalone nested clones stayed as full
clones.
> - Long-lived tasks keep those clones for a long time. Many tasks hold
the same large repository, so most of the disk is duplicate `.git` data.
> - #17369 added a locked and verified move of isolated workspaces onto
the shared clone, with a reaper sweep behind a setting.
> - This pull request adds the same kind of locked and verified
conversion for standalone nested clones in open tasks, and runs it from
the same reaper path behind a new setting.
> - The benefit is that the duplicate clones go away without losing any
state or local history, and the disk stops filling.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17382 #17369. Bug report described in-PR (bug report template).
**What happened?**
On one instance, 44 open task worktrees in one project each hold a
standalone nested clone of the same large repository. Together they use
about 25 GB. About 16 GB of that is duplicate `.git` data. Another
project has 33 smaller clones. The clones are removed only when their
tasks expire, and many tasks stay open for a long time. The disk keeps
filling.
**Expected behavior**
Existing standalone nested clones in open tasks become worktrees of the
project's shared clone, with the same state and local history, and the
standalone clones are deleted.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Prepare a task with a nested project repository before #17382, or
without a shared clone, so that `.paperclip-repositories/<name>` is a
standalone clone.
2. Create the project's shared clone, as #17382 does for new tasks.
3. Observe that the old checkout stays a full clone until the task
expires.
**Paperclip version or commit:** `master` at
|
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
aa0037a137 | Support Codex warm plugin task reuse and recovery (#17390) | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
0c3b5ce273 |
perf: filter sandbox provider lookups in Postgres (#17395)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Sandbox execution selects a provider from installed plugin manifests. > - Driver-key lookup reads every plugin row before it finds a matching declaration. > - Repeated lookups transfer manifests for unrelated plugins. > - The registry owns this database read and can filter candidates before returning rows. > - This pull request adds that filter and keeps the existing provider selection checks. > - The returned data now grows with matching providers instead of the full catalog. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** `resolvePluginSandboxProviderDriverByKey` calls the unfiltered registry catalog on each lookup. The caller only needs plugins with a sandbox-provider declaration for one driver key. Unrelated plugin manifests still cross the database connection and are decoded in the server. **Proposed solution** Add an optional sandbox-provider driver-key filter to `pluginRegistryService().list`. Match the key and kind on the same JSON declaration in Postgres. Pass the key from the existing resolver. Keep full matching rows, install order, status checks and worker checks. **Alternatives considered** A catalog cache would need an invalidation contract for plugin updates and independent writers. This change keeps fresh database reads. Returning only one SQL row could skip a later eligible provider when an earlier worker is unavailable. The filter therefore keeps all matching candidates. **Roadmap alignment** This is a small performance fix to existing plugin execution. It adds no product feature or provider. Searches for sandbox/driver lookup and plugin catalog/filter work found no duplicate PR or issue. ## What Changed - Add an optional JSONB containment filter to the existing registry list read. - Use it in sandbox-provider lookup by driver key. The unfiltered catalog call keeps its existing behavior. - Add real-Postgres regression coverage and a short developer note. ## Verification - Four focused provider-selection/recovery/seam suites passed: 27 tests. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - The new Postgres tests seed large unrelated manifests and verify the actual resolver SQL filters rows in the database. They cover key/kind matching within one declaration, unfiltered reads, install order, disabled and unavailable workers, live status/declaration changes, unknown keys and bound unusual input. - The filter keeps the existing SQL call count. It does not add a network call, cache, timer, or background worker. - `git diff --check`: passed. Reviewed the staged diff for secrets and private account data before push. - Full PR CI passed on `6f97c984a931416b6347e9885d840557c54d8aab`: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. [Workflow evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40041294925). - Apex review: 5/5 on that exact head, completed cleanly, with no comments or unresolved threads. Merge state is clean. - The prior local full run on parent work is documented in #17384. It did not pass because of test setup, host Git-default assumptions and transient failures. Those results were preserved and triaged against unchanged code. This change uses focused local checks and full current-head CI; no new local full-suite pass is claimed. - No hosted user journey, live provider throughput, production deployment or billed savings is claimed. ## Risks - JSONB containment checks the stored manifest before returning rows. It still scans candidate metadata in the database; no index or SQL-call reduction is claimed. - Both key and kind must match the same declaration. The regression fixture includes a plugin with those values on different declarations. - Selection still uses the existing install-order and live readiness/worker checks. Matching disabled records remain visible to callers that do not require a running worker. - No schema, API response, provider protocol, file-copy behavior or scheduling changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools 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 - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8549ecaf9a |
Re-home isolated repository workspaces onto the shared project clone (#17369)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Each isolated task workspace is a Git worktree on the server disk,
and the terminal workspace reaper and git cache expiration keep that
disk usage bounded
> - For some days, workspace preparation gave each isolated
`git_worktree` workspace its own full clone under
`isolated-repository-sources/`, with the worktree inside it. #16963
removed that creation path, but the existing clones stay, and restoring
an expired workspace still recreates its private clone
> - On one instance, 30 such clones use about 23 GB: 12.1 GB of `.git`
data, 5.2 GB of unused default-branch checkouts and 5.75 GB of real
worktrees. 28 of them back open workspaces, and the disk is nearly full
> - This pull request moves each such open workspace onto the project's
shared managed clone with its exact state, deletes the private clone,
and makes restore use the shared clone
> - The benefit is that disk use drops to one shared clone per project
repository, with no lost work and no change for workspaces that cannot
move safely
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16963. Bug report described in-PR (bug report template).
**What happened?**
On one instance, 30 per-issue clones under
`isolated-repository-sources/<companyId>/<issueId>/checkout` use about
23 GB. 28 of them back open workspaces. No process moves these
workspaces to the shared project clone that new workspaces use, and git
cache expiration does not remove a clone while its workspace is open.
Reopening an expired workspace whose recipe has `sourceKind:
"isolated_remote"` clones the full repository again. Separately, a
restore point with a non-default file mode cannot be restored: the
reference read back from jsonb has reordered `modes` keys, so
`loadGitRestorePoint` fails with `restore_point_manifest_mismatch`.
**Expected behavior**
An open workspace with a private clone moves to the shared project clone
with the same branch, HEAD, index, worktree, untracked and ignored
files, and file modes. The private clone is then deleted. Reopening an
expired workspace uses the shared clone when one exists. A restore point
with non-default file modes restores.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an isolated `git_worktree` workspace with
`materializeIsolatedRemoteWorkspaceSource` and record
`isolatedRemoteSource` metadata, as preparation did before #16963.
2. Keep its issue open. The clone stays, because no sweep moves or
removes it.
3. Expire the workspace with a restore point that has a file with mode
`0600`, then reopen it. The private clone is created again, and the
restore fails with `restore_point_manifest_mismatch`.
**Paperclip version or commit:** `master` at
|
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
100477e887 | Avoid live workspace inspection in task context reads (#17396) | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5a7e740d82 |
fix: validate managed AI accounts before verification allocation (#17384)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A saved agent must pass execution configuration checks before it can run. > - Managed AI account selection belongs to the existing company-scoped account service. > - Verification allocated its execution environment before it checked that account. > - A missing default or revoked account could create a sandbox on each retry. > - This pull request checks account selection before allocation and keeps the final check. > - Invalid account settings now fail before they cause avoidable provider work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Saved-agent lifecycle verification allocates a test execution target before `withManagedAiProbe` selects the managed AI account. An unavailable account can cause sandbox creation and cleanup on every retry. **Expected behavior** Check account compatibility, responsible-user access, default selection, grant health and agent eligibility before target allocation. Check current account access again before the real probe. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a saved OpenCode agent with an OpenRouter personal-default binding. 2. Leave that user's OpenRouter default empty, or revoke the selected grant. 3. Let lifecycle verification use a sandbox execution environment. 4. Before this change, verification can allocate the target and then reject the account. After this change, account selection rejects the configuration before allocation. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline `b5bf86ea09042a864b60910f80c8fdf7e64e9ef0`. **Deployment mode** Server with Postgres and a remote execution environment. Tests use disposable local Postgres and a controlled target allocation boundary. Searched public PRs and issues for verification, connection preflight, probes and lifecycle work. No duplicate fix found. Related public issue #16128 concerns credential probing and reauthorization. This change does not alter reauthorization or credential refresh. ## What Changed - Call the existing managed account selector with the resolved adapter and model before allocating a verification execution target. - Keep router resolution, secret handling, final account selection and target release with their existing owners. - Add six Postgres tests and document the saved-agent ordering contract. ## Verification - Focused verification suites: 30 tests passed across two files. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - Full PR CI passed on `ddc0879d46b60310c533e6d3c4b8acdd178d979c`: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. [Workflow evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40033261909). This includes typecheck, tests, build and browser checks. - Apex review: 5/5 on that exact head, clean check, no comments or unresolved threads. Merge state is clean. - Additional local `pnpm test:run` is still running. The complete local suite is not yet a pass claim. - The first focused run passed the missing-default case but failed five setup hooks because fixtures reused a unique company prefix. Each fixture now has a distinct prefix. The complete focused rerun passed. - Tests use real account selection, memberships, grants, personal defaults, encrypted fixture credentials and managed runtime preparation. Only execution-target allocation and the provider probe are controlled boundaries. No live provider request is required. - Tests prove that missing defaults, revoked grants and incompatible models do not allocate a target. A valid account still reaches the managed probe. Revocation during allocation still fails the final account check and releases the target. Probe failure also releases it. - `git diff --check`: passed. Reviewed the diff for secrets and private account data before push. - No hosted login or production deployment is claimed for this follow-up. ## Risks - Adds one read-only account selection to each managed saved-agent verification attempt. The selector can read company accounts and grants. It makes no provider request and creates no execution target. - Final selection stays fresh. A successful preflight does not reserve an account or cache authorization. - Missing configuration still follows the existing durable lifecycle retry schedule. This change prevents needless allocation; it does not remove those database retries. - No schema, scheduler, provider-account choice, capacity or public API changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools 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 - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
ec2e0d6407 |
Share one clone across nested project repository checkouts (#17382)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A project can attach extra repositories, and every task worktree
gets a managed checkout of each one under
`.paperclip-repositories/<name>`
> - Each of these nested checkouts is a full clone. The clone uses
`--dissociate`, so no objects are shared between tasks
> - On one instance, 44 task worktrees held nested checkouts of the same
repository: 24 GB of 27 GB of worktrees. Each new task added about 0.5
GB, and the disk filled twice in one day
> - Main task worktrees already avoid this, because they are git
worktrees of one managed project clone
> - This pull request makes nested checkouts git worktrees of one shared
clone per project and repository, and adapts expiration, restore points,
restore and cleanup to them without weaker safety checks
> - The benefit is that repository objects are stored once, and a new
task adds only its working files
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This is the in-PR bug report.
**What happened?**
Every task in a project with extra repositories got a full, independent
clone of each extra repository under `.paperclip-repositories/`. On one
instance this used 24 GB of 27 GB of task worktrees (16 GB of it `.git`
data) and filled the disk twice in one day.
**Expected behavior**
Nested checkouts of the same repository share one object store, like
main task worktrees share the managed project clone. Disk use per new
task is only its working files.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a project with a primary repository and a second repository
that has a repository URL and no local folder.
2. Run several tasks in isolated git worktrees in that project.
3. Look at `<task worktree>/.paperclip-repositories/<name>/.git`: each
one is a full directory with its own copy of every object.
**Paperclip version or commit:** `master` at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bf223596ab |
fix(runner): bootstrap fresh sessions in replacement sandboxes (#17320)
Reuse the untouched-session proof and atomic directory claim when a sandbox replacement carries a provider session that has never run. Retain verified restore for saved backups and all prior or ambiguous session activity. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4660b22f6b |
perf: narrow run bindings during event ingestion (#17378)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs append native events and retry-exhaustion receipts. > - These writes lock the run row and verify its company and agent bindings. > - The binding check fetched the full run, including prompts, configuration, and output. > - This pull request reads only the two fields that the check uses. > - The benefit is less database transfer while the same row lock protects sequence allocation and replay checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #17355 and #17348 reduce other run-read payloads. GitHub searches for event-read and narrow-run PRs found no duplicate of this event-ingestion change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The run binding read during native event and retry-exhaustion ingestion. **Current behavior** The transaction uses a full-row `SELECT ... FOR UPDATE` to check only `companyId` and `agentId`. Large run context, runner configuration, and output cross the database connection for each such check. **Proposed behavior** Select only the company and agent IDs. Keep the same run ID predicate, row lock, transaction, sequence allocator, replay cursor, and binding checks. **Reason and benefit** The check does not use the other fields. Narrowing the query removes that repeated transfer without a cache or an authorization change. **Breaking changes** None. No API response, schema, event, or scheduling changes. ## What Changed - Narrow the existing run-row read inside `appendHeartbeatRunEvent`. The event service continues to own its transaction and binding validation. - Exercise native and retry-exhaustion writes and replays with large stored payloads. Record the executed SQL to prove the lock reads only the two binding fields. - Extend missing-run and company/agent mismatch coverage to both transaction paths. Keep the existing concurrent-writer and rollback tests. - Document the read boundary. ## Verification - Focused PostgreSQL event append and sequencing suites: 9 tests passed. They include concurrent writers, replay conflicts, rollback, cursor checks, large payloads, and company/agent/missing-run denials. - The first new retry-exhaustion fixture failed its duplicate assertion because it omitted the exhaustion fields from the event payload. The existing producer contract stores those fields in the payload. The fixture now does the same; the rerun passed. No production retry or replay logic changed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - Greptile Apex: 5/5 on `76a6d3ee813ae47919b1ec8e8b88e01e58d5655d`, clean check and no review threads. The [full PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40028758665) passed on that exact head: 54 checks passed and two conditional checks were skipped. The branch is conflict-free. - The full local all-in-one suite is not repeated for this follow-up. Full exact-head CI will supply the broader suite coverage. - No hosted deployment or bill reduction is claimed for this follow-up. ## Risks - Low scope: only the selected columns change. The `FOR UPDATE` lock, transaction boundaries, sequence reservation, duplicate checks, and failure handling remain in place. - Native replay and legacy event writers must still serialize on the same row. Existing real PostgreSQL concurrency tests cover that boundary. - No migration, provider change, new timer, or operator configuration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family), with code execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window. ## 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 #` 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 (focused suites above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
a3e8fa568a |
Reduce repeated work during plugin Runner admission (#17377)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their execution authority. > - A plugin can host Runner tasks on a persistent execution host. > - Admission checks must observe current lifecycle state and credentials. > - The current runtime reader also resolves files, skills, and connections for each check. > - Some providers also repeat the same project authentication check during submit. > - This pull request adds a compact fresh reader and an explicit submit-time validation contract. > - Providers can remove repeated work while Core keeps lease and scope checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Plugin Runner startup before task submission. **Current behavior** One measured startup made 30 full runtime reads during bootstrap. These reads took 5.759 seconds. Each guard can resolve instructions, skills, and connection assignments even when it only needs current identity and lifecycle state. Providers that already enforce project authentication in submit must also perform a separate Core preflight. **Proposed behavior** Use a lifecycle-owned runtime identity reader for guards. Keep the full runtime reader for synchronization inputs. A trusted provider can declare `projectAuthCheckAtSubmit: true` in its prepared result. Core pins the exact configuration, provider, and project set on the lease. The provider must reject authentication conflicts before credential installation or task start. Providers that omit the flag retain the existing preflight. **Reason and benefit** Estimated savings with a paired consumer: 4–5 seconds from compact runtime checks, plus roughly 0.5–0.9 seconds from removing the duplicate authentication operation. These estimates overlap and are not a measured deployed result. Refs #17367 for the separate run-log HEAD optimization; this PR does not duplicate it. **Breaking changes** No migration. The SDK adds a host method and an optional prepared-result field. Consumers that use them require this Core host version. Older providers retain their existing flow. ## What Changed - Add `agents.getRuntimeIdentity` across SDK, RPC, host service, and test fixtures. - Reuse the existing company, plugin ownership, readiness, and capability checks. Read lifecycle state and protected instance secrets fresh on every call. - Skip instruction, organization, skill, and connection hydration in the compact reader. - Allow explicit submit-time authentication enforcement, with prepared scope pinned and checked again at dispatch. - Emit fixed preparation, project-auth, submit, and connection timing phases. ## Verification - 72 targeted SDK capability, plugin task-owner, and environment-task mediator tests passed. - 33 real embedded-Postgres lifecycle and secret tests passed, including pause, content revision, company isolation, plugin disablement, and secret rotation. - SDK and server TypeScript checks passed. Local Runner/eval TypeScript outputs were built to satisfy server type resolution. - Local Postgres required missing library aliases in ignored dependencies; no product source was changed for that repair. - Full repository suites are delegated to GitHub CI. No live rollout or speedup claim. ## Risks The submit-time flag delegates enforcement to a trusted provider. It is not proof that prepare already checked authentication. The provider must check before VM credential installation or task admission. Core still checks exact prepared scope, active lease, run identity, credential type, and dispatch fencing. Existing providers keep the separate check. Roll back a paired consumer before rolling back this host. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with code execution and repository tools. Exact deployment build and context-window size are not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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> |
||
|
|
3c4050e3ad |
fix(connections): keep Cloud refresh reauthorization diagnostics (#17362)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed connections (Gmail, Google Workspace, GitHub, Asana, Slack manager) get and refresh their OAuth tokens through the Paperclip Cloud connector broker. > - When a provider refuses a refresh grant (the user revoked it, it expired, it was already rotated, or it no longer matches the profile), the broker sent `502 PROVIDER_OPERATION_FAILED`. That is the same answer it sends for a provider outage. > - Paperclip then kept the grant `active`. Each health check, catalog refresh, or catalog read failed again with a 502, and the server reported each failure as a crash. The user did not get a reconnect prompt. > - The broker now sends `409 PROVIDER_REAUTHORIZATION_REQUIRED` for a dead grant. The connector already maps any 409 to `REAUTHORIZATION_REQUIRED`. Thus the grant becomes `needs_reauthorization` and the caller gets a 422 reconnect response. > - This pull request adds the new reason to the diagnostic allowlist, pins the producer contract, and tests the reconnect path from end to end. > - The benefit is that a dead managed grant asks the user to reconnect. It is not reported as a server crash. Real provider outages keep their 502 response. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A managed Paperclip Cloud connection refresh failed with `Paperclip Cloud connector rejected the request (operation=refresh, status=502, reason=PROVIDER_OPERATION_FAILED)`. The connection health-check and catalog routes wrap that error as an HTTP 502. The error handler reports every status of 500 or more, so the failure went to error monitoring. The grant stayed `active`, so the same failure can occur again on each use. **Expected behavior** If the provider refuses the refresh grant, Paperclip marks the grant `needs_reauthorization` and shows the reconnect path. Only a real provider or Cloud outage gives a 502. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect a managed Gmail connection through Paperclip Cloud. 2. Revoke the app access in the Google account, or let the refresh grant expire. 3. Wait until the access token needs a refresh. Then run a connection health check. 4. Before the broker change, the health check returns 502 and the server reports it. The grant stays `active`. **Additional context** The broker-side classification ships separately in Paperclip Cloud. This pull request is safe before or after that change, because the connector already maps any broker 409 to `REAUTHORIZATION_REQUIRED`. Without this pull request, the 409 still works, but diagnostics show `reason=UNKNOWN_BROKER_ERROR`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/paperclip-cloud-connector.ts`: Add `PROVIDER_REAUTHORIZATION_REQUIRED` to the allowlist of broker reasons that errors can keep. - `server/src/services/fixtures/cloud-connector-refresh-reauthorization.json`: Add the producer HTTP contract (status 409 and the exact JSON error body). - `server/src/services/paperclip-cloud-connector.test.ts`: Test that a refresh with this contract gives `REAUTHORIZATION_REQUIRED`, status 409, the retained reason, and no refresh-token text. - `server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`: Test that `refreshOAuthGrantCredentials` changes a reauthorization refresh failure into a 422 `oauth_reauthorization_required` response and sets the grant to `needs_reauthorization`. - `doc/connections/GMAIL.md`: Add a troubleshooting row that tells the two refresh reasons apart. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/paperclip-cloud-connector.test.ts`: 48 passed. Without the allowlist change, the new test fails (`reason=UNKNOWN_BROKER_ERROR`). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "managed grant for reconnection|orders managed reconnect"`: 2 passed, against the embedded test database. - I did not run the full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` locally. The sandbox has a 4 GB memory limit, and the server `tsc` process was stopped because it used too much memory. CI runs these checks. ## Risks - Low risk. The status mapping does not change: a 409 already meant `REAUTHORIZATION_REQUIRED`. This change only keeps one more fixed reason code in the error message. - The reason allowlist accepts fixed protocol codes only. The broker message, request data, and tokens stay out of errors and logs. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code agent mode with tool use (shell, file edit, code search, and a sub-agent for the code-path trace). ## 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
dfe7df0015 |
fix(native): expire settled native workspace sync folders (#17358)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs sync their workspace with a remote sandbox through a
per-run folder under `<instance>/native-workspace-sync/<run>/`
> - The folder holds a descriptor, a manifest, and workspace and git
seed archives, and a seed can be more than a gigabyte
> - Only a few finalization commit paths delete the folder, so many runs
leave it on disk forever
> - Instance disks fill up with folders that no code will read again
> - This pull request adds a bounded, deadline-driven retention worker
that removes a folder only when no reader can still need it
> - The benefit is that instance disks stop growing with stale sync
folders, and recovery and export paths keep their files
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`cleanupNativeWorkspaceSync(runId)` is the only code that deletes
`native-workspace-sync/<run>/`. It runs only when finalization commits
through specific paths. Runs that end in `terminal_failure`, retained
recovery, reconstruction, superseded runs, commits through other paths,
and server crashes leave the folder forever. On one instance, 22 folders
older than 7 days held 6.8 GB. Single seed archives were up to 1.4 GB.
**Expected behavior**
A run's sync folder is removed after a retention window, once the run
and its finalization are settled and no recovery or export path can
still read it. The shared `generations` seed cache stays.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native agent with a remote sandbox and let the run end in
`terminal_failure` (or crash the server during finalization).
2. Wait more than 7 days.
3. Look in `<instance>/native-workspace-sync/`. The run's folder and its
seed archives are still there.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d90634f74 |
feat(connections): add 1Password service-account connector (#17249)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and govern their access to outside services. > - Apps connections keep provider credentials in the instance vault and mediate every action through grants, policies, and audit. > - Agents currently have no Apps connection for reading or managing 1Password items with an operator-supplied service-account token. > - 1Password supports this through its official SDK; its documentation MCP server does not expose vault operations. > - This pull request adds a one-field service-account connection and registers eight reviewed SDK actions through the existing native-provider catalog. > - Operators can select vault permissions in 1Password and agent/action access in Paperclip without installing a CLI or handing durable credentials to agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16144 adds 1Password as Paperclip's secret-storage backend. This PR adds the separate Apps/tool-access flow with a per-connection credential; it does not change secret providers or use a server-wide ambient token. **Subsystem affected** Apps catalog, native tool-provider registry, and shared connection setup. **Problem or motivation** People need to paste their own `OP_SERVICE_ACCOUNT_TOKEN`, find official service-account setup instructions, and authorize agents to use the selected vaults through ordinary Paperclip governance. **Proposed solution** Add `1password/service-account`, with a password field labeled **Paste your 1Password Service Account token** and a link to [1Password's creation instructions](https://www.1password.dev/service-accounts/get-started#create-a-service-account). Use the pinned official `@1password/sdk` 0.5.0 for vault/item listing, item and secret-reference reads, and item create/update/archive/delete. **Alternatives considered** A remote MCP card would not provide vault access. A local CLI or a third-party MCP package adds installation and credential surfaces that the official SDK avoids. ## What Changed - Added the source and generated catalog definition, permission review, official light/dark artwork, documentation, and capability-map references. - Added a provider-owned SDK bridge with strict schemas, account-domain validation, contract hashes, fixed errors, bounded output, and disposable workers with cancellation/deadlines. - Registered the provider through master's native-provider catalog; existing setup, health, discovery, gateway, policy, and audit owners remain in place. - Labeled the single password field **Paste your 1Password Service Account token**. The shared formatter preserves explicit credential prompts; ordinary key labels retain their existing presentation. - Added credential-ownership, gateway read/write, policy/revocation, worker, setup UI, and interactive Storybook coverage. ## Verification - Final review follow-up: added two deterministic worker-entry tests for nested exact-token redaction and oversized-output rejection. Removing each guard caused exactly its regression test to fail. The focused provider suite passed **15 tests**, and the official server typecheck passed after rebuilding stale workspace SDK artifacts. Current head `569cb7f9bd57db791fb13a6034ce69bf50878cb1` passed the full [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40016166260), including typecheck, build, unit/integration tests, and all eight browser shards. The required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates passed. [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17249#issuecomment-6353731805) and [Paperclip Review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17249#issuecomment-6372165895) each rated this exact head **5/5**, with no open findings. Paperclip Review completed with a neutral check because its scoped reviewer could not inspect CI; the full CI result was verified separately. Other neutral checks and intentionally skipped Storybook jobs contain no actionable findings. - CI recovery on the same commit: the first attempt lost six jobs. Five logged simultaneous runner shutdowns at 18:49 UTC on 2026-10-23; the sixth stopped logging before a test result and its root cause was not established. No assertion failure appeared in the retrieved logs. All six jobs and the aggregate gates passed one failed-job retry. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40005754936). - Copy follow-up: the catalog, provider, and setup UI suites passed **275 tests**. The governed gateway lifecycle passed **3 tests** (one live-only test skipped), including create, update, archive, and delete. UI token gates and map checks passed. The branch was rebased onto `9c442cf48e` to resolve additive catalog conflicts while retaining the Vercel and Supabase entries. The existing live write proof below remains applicable; this follow-up changes presentation only. - Five affected suites, including the existing Daytona consumer, passed **290 tests** (one opt-in live test skipped in fixture mode). Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. The local broad-suite attempt could not complete because PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion prevented a competing integration suite from starting; the complete affected-file retry passed after disposable-process cleanup. The prior commit `f208a8aff6dc28859cc3f343497e18d85f124579` passed the complete CI matrix. All CI build, typecheck, test, and browser gates also passed on the earlier commit `9e2f3d3140368a08da43b004b2e8d3a0f4c0fa4d`. The separate Paperclip Review reported a worker-result regression-test gap on that head; the follow-up above addresses it. Its review thread is resolved, and both fresh current-head reviews are clean as recorded above. - Token gates, module boundaries, brand validation, map checks, and Storybook catalog checks passed. - Direct SDK create/archive/delete and rejected-call coverage passed (13 provider tests); the Storybook Permissions/Test play completed successfully in Chromium. Server and UI typechecks passed after those fixes. Greptile passed prior commit `9e2f3d3140368a08da43b004b2e8d3a0f4c0fa4d` at **5/5**. Both reviewers also passed the worker-test follow-up at **5/5** as recorded above. - Live 1Password proof on 2026-10-22: connect, eight-action discovery, vault listing through an actual run-scoped gateway, refresh, reconnect preserving identity, another read, removal, and denial through the retained session passed. Credential absence was asserted in responses/audit; an exact-token scan of inspected logs and changed files passed. - Real browser: Connectors → 1Password → token entry → personal access limited to one disposable agent → completion → Permissions → Test `onepassword_list_vaults` succeeded. The disposable connection was removed afterward. - Compiled-worker smoke initially exposed inherited Node launch flags. Workers now use explicit empty `execArgv`; the compiled worker then authenticated successfully and listed one vault. - Live write proof on **2026-10-23**: the replacement Keychain token passed all eight actions through the actual run-scoped gateway for both personal and shared credentials. The test created, listed, read, updated, resolved a secret from, archived, and deleted two synthetic items. Both were absent from subsequent item lists. Refresh/reconnect, identity preservation, removal, retained-session denial, and credential absence passed. The live suite passed **3 tests** (one fixture-only test skipped) in 116.65 seconds. The expanded fixture suite passed **3 tests** (one live-only test skipped); the 13 provider tests and server typecheck passed. An exact-token scan passed over 64 source/log files. - Failure history: the original token denied creation on 2026-10-22 and created no item. The first 2026-10-23 attempt stopped before provider calls because host PostgreSQL semaphore limits prevented test-database startup. A temporary ten-connection test profile allowed the complete retry to pass without changing shared services or host limits. A new delete-result assertion also exposed an outdated fixture response (`success` instead of `deleted`); the fixture was corrected and the complete fixture suite passed. Official contract sources: [service accounts](https://www.1password.dev/service-accounts/get-started), [SDKs](https://www.1password.dev/sdks), [item management](https://www.1password.dev/sdks/manage-items), [official JavaScript SDK](https://github.com/1Password/onepassword-sdk-js). ## Risks - Authorized item/secret reads intentionally return secret values to the agent and ordinary tool-result history. Select trusted agents and use restricted service-account vaults; the connection token itself is redacted. - New connections retain existing Paperclip action defaults, including Allowed writes/destructive actions for selected agents. 1Password still enforces the token's permissions. - Service-account access cannot be changed in place. Create a replacement account and reconnect to change vault permissions; read-only keys can connect but cannot write. - SDK authentication happens per action in a disposable worker. Calls have a 30-second maximum; cancellation stops local work, while a mutation already accepted by 1Password can still finish. Writes are never automatically retried. - Additive dependency and catalog change; no database migration. Disable/remove the connection to withdraw access, or remove the provider from catalog visibility for rollback. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code editing, shell/browser tools, and live provider verification. A more specific runtime model ID and context-window limit 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
ef9e17304c |
perf: narrow runtime progress database reads (#17355)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Active runs publish workspace and provider progress. > - Each update must check the current run status before it publishes. > - This check fetched the full run, including prompts and runner configuration. > - This pull request reads only the four fields that progress publication uses. > - The benefit is less database transfer while each update still checks durable state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #17348 narrows authorization reads. This PR applies a separate projection to runtime progress. GitHub searches for runtime progress and run-status read PRs found no duplicate. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The database read before a runtime progress update. **Current behavior** Each update calls `getRun`. This reads large run context and runner configuration even though progress publication only uses the run ID, company ID, agent ID, and status. **Proposed behavior** Use a fresh four-column read for each update. Keep the existing active-status check, event fields, error propagation, and late-progress suppression. **Reason and benefit** Transfer progress can emit many updates for one run. A small status check avoids repeatedly transferring payloads that it does not use. **Breaking changes** None. No API response, schema, scheduling, or cancellation policy changes. ## What Changed - Add `getRunStatus` to the run-state owner. The full reader remains available to consumers that need execution data. - Wire the narrow reader into the lifecycle progress check. Remove the unused context field from that check's input contract. - Cover the exact selected fields, missing runs, database errors, large stored payloads, terminal transitions, and the public heartbeat service wiring. Document the read boundary. ## Verification - Run-state and lifecycle suites: 44 tests passed before the additional public-service regression. - Lifecycle, public-service wiring, and native cancellation suites: 36 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - The [full PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40013092548) passed on `95bf496f689049812646b5ccddcdf2cca21efad0`. All 54 reported checks passed; two conditional checks were skipped. This includes test shards, browser checks, Runner verification, production bundle boot, and clean npm installation. - `GIT_CONFIG_COUNT=1 GIT_CONFIG_KEY_0=init.defaultBranch GIT_CONFIG_VALUE_0=master pnpm test:run`: an additional local all-in-one run is still in progress; no full-local-pass claim. The process-scoped Git default matches existing master-only fixtures and does not change user configuration. - The initial description check failed because the dedup-search checkbox was missing. Searches are complete and the template checkbox is now included. The rerun passed on the same source commit. - Greptile Apex: 5/5 on `95bf496f689049812646b5ccddcdf2cca21efad0`, no findings or review threads. - No hosted deployment or bill reduction is claimed. CI and Apex are complete; this PR is merge-ready. ## Risks - Low scope: the query selects fewer columns and preserves the existing status read on every progress callback. It adds no worker, cache, timer, or idle query. - A run can still finish after the status read and before publication, as it could before this change. This PR does not change that concurrency boundary. - No migration or operator configuration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family). The runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window. ## 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 #` 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 (focused suites above; full suite is still running) - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
837add0caa |
fix(recovery): deliver review-path repair instructions to agent prompts (#17353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip keeps agent tasks moving through owned execution and durable waiting paths. > - A consumed review path gets one repair wake before board escalation. > - That wake records an instruction to save a new monitor or another real review path. > - The canonical wake builder omitted that instruction from the agent prompt. > - This pull request delivers it through the existing disposition-repair section. > - The repair limit and execution authority stay unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent opened a pull request and promised to watch CI and external review. It ended without scheduling a monitor. Its bounded review repair also ended without a maintained path, so the task became blocked for a board decision. The saved repair context contained the instruction, but the canonical wake payload and rendered prompt did not. **Expected behavior** The repair prompt tells the agent to save a one-shot monitor before promising another check. Both fresh and resumed sessions receive that instruction and the one-attempt limit. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a review-path recovery with `decideIssueReviewPathRecovery` for a task whose review path was consumed. 2. Pass its recorded context through `buildPaperclipWakePayload` and wake serialization. 3. Render a fresh or resumed prompt. Before this fix, it has the wake reason but no repair instruction. **Paperclip version or commit** Base: `9c442cf48e6`. Current head: `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`. **Deployment mode** Observed on managed sandbox execution with the legacy Claude ACP adapter. The corrected canonical payload serves the shared adapter prompt path. Refs #15764 introduced the bounded exhausted-repair disposition. This change preserves that limit. Open monitor-retry work such as #17171 addresses an already scheduled check; this defect occurs before a check exists. Searches found no duplicate for this missing prompt field. ## What Changed - Build the review-path repair disposition in its owning recovery module, using the server instruction and fixed one-attempt bound. - Project it into the existing canonical `dispositionRepair` field. No new adapter field or execution protocol is added. - Ignore arbitrary replacement instructions and attempt-limit values. A pending repair keeps its instruction across a connection-pool retry that changes the wake reason. Ordinary wakes without the typed repair marker ignore raw instruction text. Existing legacy disposition repairs retain their values. - Add a regression across the real recovery decision, wake builder, serializer and fresh/resumed prompt selectors. Update execution guidance and the affected recovery maps. ## Verification - Verified red before the source fix: two regression cases failed because the instruction was absent; the sibling repair case passed. The same cases pass after the fix. - Passed 194 focused and safety tests across wake preparation, review recovery, adapter prompt handling, and database-backed liveness escalation. The connection-pool retry case also failed before its correction and passes after it. - Replayed the recorded incident wake through the fixed boundary. The old canonical prompt lacked its saved instruction. The corrected serialized prompt includes it with a 1/1 bound. This replay did not execute a provider turn or change the source task. Private evidence stays outside the repository. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` after the pool-retry correction. Passed `pnpm build` on final head `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`. Map checks and `git diff --check` pass. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40005890857) passed on that head: 54 checks passed and two optional checks were skipped. This includes the full test shards, typecheck, build, and browser suites. The local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after the CI test shards passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed. - [Apex review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17353#issuecomment-6372160694) is 5/5 on the final head, with no open findings. The first review found the pool-retry case. Its regression and correction are included. The branch has no merge conflicts. - Test setup first required the plugin SDK build, then an empty credential-history database boundary. Those setup errors are not the claimed red. The temporary recorded-wake probe was removed before final validation. - Hosted follow-up acceptance is not run. The source task remains blocked and needs a retry after rollout. This PR does not claim that prompt delivery itself schedules a monitor or that every model will follow the instruction. ## Risks - This fixes instruction delivery. The agent must still save a valid monitor or another waiting path. The existing bounded escalation remains if it does not. - The wake stays a normal-model repair. It does not become status-only recovery and can continue useful work. Existing ownership, approval, budget, pause, and monitor admission gates remain in place. - No schema, credential, telemetry, API, model, or retry-budget change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with diagnosis, code editing, shell execution and verification. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit 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 (194 focused and safety cases; full coverage passed in CI) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9c442cf48e |
feat(connections): deploy and configure Supabase and Vercel (#17217)
Add governed Supabase and Vercel deployment/configuration connectors with vaulted credentials, agent access policies, approvals, audit, and bounded provider operations. Deliver reviewed REST actions to native agents and guard Vercel preview intent on empty projects. Preserve secret-safe request identity and durable retry behavior. Verified by current-head CI, fresh Greptile 5/5 review, and real-agent deployment/configuration walkthroughs on disposable provider resources. Test resources and temporary provider tokens were removed after verification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
f406b32d08 |
perf: narrow run authorization reads (#17348)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage and observe AI agents at work. > - Live events and run history must enforce current task permissions. > - Some permission checks load the complete run record for each event or request. > - Run context, runner configuration, results, and output can make those records large. > - This pull request reads only the persisted fields each access check needs. > - The checks still read current permissions and fail closed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #17251, #9155, and #16229. Those changes cover other run projections, recovery polls, and task history. This change covers live-event delivery, workspace-operation run checks, and event-list access. **What happened?** Live-event delivery loaded every run column for each subscribed viewer, although the permission helper used only the company, run scope, and task binding. Workspace-operation checks did the same. The run-event endpoint also loaded complete run records before returning separate event rows. Large contexts and runner configurations therefore increased database transfer for ordinary access checks. **Expected behavior** Read only the stored access binding. Keep company checks, permission freshness, deleted-task tombstones, and response bodies unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue-bound run with large context, runner configuration, and output fields. 2. Subscribe an authorized viewer to company live events and publish run updates. 3. Read the run events and a linked workspace operation. 4. Inspect the run SELECT projections. The previous queries load fields that the access checks do not use. **Paperclip version or commit** The defect is present on the current master base, `62c78e56e53`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with PostgreSQL. The defect is not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Select only company, scope, and issue bindings for live-event and workspace-operation run authorization. - Add a four-field run-access read for event-list requests. Reuse those columns in the existing log-access projection. - Preserve per-delivery and per-request permission checks, company predicates, and event responses. - Add real PostgreSQL and WebSocket coverage with large run fixtures. Cover grant revocation, grant restoration, deleted tasks, missing and foreign-company runs, and failed reads. - Document the bounded access reads in the existing polling-load guide. ## Verification - Six focused suites pass: 40 tests. They cover the changed paths, run-state reads, run logs, disconnect retries, and native event replay. - The new WebSocket test uses the production delivery path and a real database. It verifies that the selected SQL omits large run fields while authorization changes take effect on the same open socket. - The event-route test preserves the returned event content and denies the next request after grant revocation. - Local recursive typecheck, full build, and module-boundary checks pass. [Exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39997370119) completed successfully, covering the full grouped unit suites, typecheck, build/runtime boot, and E2E shards. The separate serial local `pnpm test:run` is still running and is not claimed as completed. - A later CI shard failed an unchanged email test expecting exactly one task after permission grants. The unchanged-base test passes at normal speed; adding only a 2.2-second pause before granting access reproduces the extra tasks because previously denied deliveries become due for retry. No email code or assertions are changed in this PR. The original failure is retained. The single shard rerun passed: 92 suites and 1,489 tests passed, with one suite and two tests skipped by the existing gates. - CI initially found a route-test double missing the new access helper. The follow-up fixes that fixture and adds event reads to malformed-ID and missing/cross-company checks. All 122 tests across the four changed-path suites pass; a final rerun of the expanded route suite passes all 92 tests. - The first CI run also timed out in the signoff changes-requested handoff while waiting for a reviewer run after a cancelled execution blocker. The focused test passes locally on this source. The same focused test passes three times on unchanged master. Controller-lease cancellation messages appear on both versions. The original CI timeout is preserved as an intermittent, unreproduced failure; its exact cause remains unknown. The signoff shard passes in the final exact-head CI run. - Initial fresh-checkout tests could not start because workspace SDK output and native PostgreSQL library links were missing. Dependency builds and the package's native-link setup corrected those prerequisites. The subsequent focused run passed. Focused command: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/live-events-run-read.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-privacy-routes.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-state.test.ts src/__tests__/native-observer-replay.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-privacy-disconnect-retry.test.ts ``` ## Risks - A missing access field could cause an incorrect allow or denial. Tests exercise current grants, revocation, company scope, and deleted-task bindings through the real consumers. - No successful permission decision is cached. Every delivery and request still checks current database state. - No schema, migration, polling interval, API response, or deployment configuration changes are included. - This reduces bytes for the affected reads. It does not establish a whole-account savings percentage. Hosted transfer measurements remain separate validation after staging deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, a GPT-6 based coding agent, used repository tools, code execution, and database-backed tests. The session does not expose the exact backend model identifier or context-window size; those values are not guessed. ## 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 LeachandPaperclip
|
a708a13336 |
Separate plugin workspace completion from maintenance inspection (#17329)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Storage plugins own remote task workspaces. > - Run completion currently requests the same inspection used for storage cleanup. > - That inspection can fetch remote refs and scan files after the agent has finished. > - Completion needs retained workspace identity and durable writes, not permission to delete files. > - This change adds an optional completion operation and keeps maintenance inspection separate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A successful plugin-backed run can fail during completion because the storage provider performs a slow remote-recoverability inspection. Dirty or unpublished output does not need a deletion-safety proof to remain valid task output. **Expected behavior** Completion verifies the assigned workspace and confirms durable writes through the provider. Cleanup still requires the existing full inspection. **Steps to reproduce** Run a task with plugin-owned storage whose inspection fetches remote refs. Let the agent finish, then observe completion waiting for the maintenance inspection. Related context: #16428 added finalization observability. The duplicate search found no existing PR for this provider contract. ## What Changed - Add optional `workspaceProvider.finalizationVersion: 1` and strict `finalize` / `finalized` schemas. - Pass original run and agent context through live completion and recovered completion. - Give the new operation a 30-second deadline and keep ownership checks and lifecycle serialization. - Retain the inspection fallback for providers without the capability. Keep maintenance inspection and removal unchanged. ## Verification - SDK build passed. - Targeted SDK and completion unit tests: 7 passed. - Added integration coverage for capability selection, legacy fallback, maintenance separation, and failure propagation. - Local integration setup timed out starting PostgreSQL; the integration suite passed in GitHub CI. - Full build/typecheck and broader tests passed in GitHub CI (55 successful checks, 2 skipped). Local checks remained targeted as requested. - Diff reviewed for secrets and operational identifiers. ## Risks The capability is opt-in. Providers must not advertise it until their completion implementation is available. An unavailable provider or failed durability barrier remains retryable. No schema or stored-binding migration is required. Test-file size exception: the provider integration suite grows from 973 to 1,002 lines. The 29-line case follows the same prepared binding through legacy completion, opted-in completion, and maintenance inspection using the existing single-connection database fixture. Keeping it there avoids a second embedded-Postgres lifecycle for one transition test. The completion helper unit tests are in a separate focused file. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Codex, with reasoning and code/test tools. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
0fb152ee94 |
fix: save stale remote-tracking commits in nested restore points (#17289)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Git cache expiration removes closed issues' worktrees once their
remote, or a restore point, can reproduce them
> - A nested `.paperclip-repositories` checkout's remote-tracking refs
can point at commits the remote has since dropped, such as a branch
deleted after a squash merge
> - Strict expiration rightly keeps such a checkout, because it may hold
the only copy; but restore point mode also kept it forever, because
there was nothing else to save
> - This pull request saves those commits in the checkout's restore
point, so the workspace can be reclaimed without losing them
> - The benefit is that long-lived multi-repository workspaces are
reclaimed in restore point mode
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17257. Bug report described in-PR (bug report template).
**What happened?**
With restore points enabled, four closed workspaces on one instance were
kept with `unpushed_managed_checkout`, after a dry run had counted them
as candidates. Each nested `paperclip` checkout was clean, on `main` at
a commit that is on GitHub `main`. But it held about 1,000
remote-tracking refs, and between 28 and 41 of them pointed at branches
the remote has since deleted or force-pushed (147 to 203 commits it no
longer has).
The relaxed check passed, so the checkout needed no restore point beyond
those commits. Capture saved only `HEAD` history, so it found nothing to
save and stored no restore point. The final check before deletion then
ran the strict check, which keeps stale remote-tracking commits, and
rolled back. The dry run never reaches that final check, so it
over-reported. Together these workspaces held about 2.4 GB.
**Expected behavior**
In restore point mode, commits that exist only in remote-tracking refs
are saved, and the workspace expires.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. In a nested checkout, fetch a remote branch, so
`refs/remotes/origin/<branch>` exists.
2. Delete that branch on the remote and garbage-collect it.
3. With restore points enabled, close the issue and run expiration: the
workspace is kept with `unpushed_managed_checkout`.
**Paperclip version or commit:** `master` at
|