mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 04:25:52 +01:00
cff331f6ca0a652b5e41641c68dfa5fa584c22ae
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8813a50105 |
feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. **Proposed solution** Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. **Alternatives considered** A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |