mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 12:59:13 +01:00
d66e96646de7bdaa4c1e3409f7806387a97d6649
30
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
0373f9f261 |
fix(recovery): wake retained workspace preservation after Retry (#17741)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their saved work. > - A stopped run can owe workspace preservation before saved input can continue. > - Retry saved a recovery request but did not wake the worker that owns preservation. > - Older recovery records could also take the bounded scan slots before a due request. > - A second Retry could change the revision while the physical owner was still saving files. > - This pull request wakes a separate worker after commit, selects due work first, and keeps the active owner's revision. > - Saved work can progress without replaying the stopped provider turn or blocking other finalization. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An operator approved a saved design and selected Retry after native workspace finalization failed. The API accepted one canonical request. The source remained scheduled at zero preservation attempts for more than 30 minutes. No new provider turn started. A local regression also found that repeated Retry during export invalidated the physical owner's completion revision. **Expected behavior** Committed Retry must wake bounded source preservation. Due recovery must progress ahead of passive cleanup obligations and unrelated history. Duplicate requests must keep one physical attempt. Saved input must still pass normal admission after verified recovery. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a terminal run with an exhausted workspace recovery and saved authorized input. 2. Let the delivery coordinator become quiet, then request Retry. 3. Observe the recovery state and physical preservation receipt. Repeat Retry while the export is held. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on served commit `4b89eec644d6e1a99d58926e77ae58927c3fa87b`. Local baseline: `a1f77821b9cd5c9c846fdf7a0fa5cc620ad2b6bb`. Related work: Refs #17053, #17267, #17094. This change repairs explicit Retry delivery. It is separate from the run instruction projection in #17724 and historical unsafe-export discovery in #17687. ## What Changed - Notify a dedicated workspace recovery duty from the transaction that saves Retry, recovery admission, adoption, or recovery progress. - Reconstruct work and saved retry deadlines at startup. Fill each free export slot independently, track physical work for idle drain, and join the dedicated worker's exports on shutdown. - Drain one bounded pass through completed cleanup and saved-input obligations. Restart that pass after committed changes without repeatedly rechecking paused input. - Share source eligibility between deadline selection and candidate consumption. Keep resolved files-only obligations and ignore unrelated resolved or cancelled history. - Select due unfinished preservation before passive historical records. Rotate past source locks held by other workers and retain the indexed source lookup. - Bind the canonical Retry intent without changing an active physical attempt's generation or revision. Preserve that binding across later progress writes. - Add real producer, physical preservation, startup, deadline, idle, and independent finalization regressions. Document the delivery contract. ## Verification - Red controls: Retry without a notification stayed scheduled; duplicate Retry invalidated the active export; whole-batch waiting stranded a third Retry; a scan without cursor rotation starved a source behind two actual advisory locks. Removing unfinished-first selection left HTTP Retry scheduled behind five real recovered sources still owing cleanup. The fixture explicitly verifies their eligibility with the worker's actual query filter. - Further red controls: the previous worker visits only two of three eligible completed sources. Disabling the committed-change cursor reset misses a new earlier source arriving while two callbacks are held. Both pass with the final worker. - Green: the public Retry HTTP route, registered production worker, real file copyback, duplicate canonical receipts, and public recovery receipt reload passed on an owned local fixture. Its agent is paused to keep this files-only check from starting a provider turn. - Full workspace recovery suite passed 56 tests, including the foreign-lock regression. - Execution-control lifecycle suite passed 24 tests. It covers idle SQL, stored deadlines, cancelled and resolved history, independent finalization, and shutdown. One, three, and seven paused completed sources are each visited in a bounded pass, then stay deferred without a successor or SQL during 90 seconds of fake-clock idle time. A committed earlier source is evaluated when it arrives during two held callbacks. - Both GitHub and Telegram `automatic_running` continuation regressions passed with the new canonical intent binding. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Local `pnpm test:run` could not complete: embedded PostgreSQL repeatedly failed to start. The owned run was stopped after this setup failure repeated. Latest-head CI supplies broad coverage. - Earlier setup failures included a localhost sandbox denial and loss of the owned disposable Docker database. These were separate from the product red controls above. - Local database tests use an explicitly named disposable PostgreSQL `_test` database. That opt-in database is reset before the suite. Default embedded test behavior is unchanged. - Exact-head CI is green at `ef7dcf1ba1060864c9d216c33b51f4d9f8f57fbd`; Greptile and Ponytail both rate it 5/5, with no unresolved review threads. Earlier CI caught the indexed discovery assertion and two exact chat intent-binding regressions; all three were fixed and pass locally and in CI. A separate chat shard lost contact with its self-hosted runner without a product assertion result. A later shared runner shutdown interrupted several jobs; one infrastructure rerun passed before the final test-and-worker follow-up triggered a fresh green run. - No staging deployment is part of this PR. The original approval remains saved; deployed recovery still needs acceptance after rollout. ## Risks - More recovery writes now wake a bounded maintenance duty. Completed history must not keep it active. Idle and deadline tests cover this boundary. - Resolved files-only obligations must remain eligible without granting replay. The startup regression checks that path. - Provider stop proof, copyback ownership, source binding, retry budgets, and normal execution admission remain required. There is no schema or public API change. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with code execution and browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
338bf75761 |
fix(chat): admit task Retry after GitHub reconnect (#17733)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their tasks. > - Task Retry must preserve saved input and enforce current access. > - A GitHub reconnect invalidates old runtime callbacks. > - Retry reused that old callback authority and rejected valid new intent. > - Retry also replayed an older failed request when a follow-up was already saved. > - This change admits a deliberate Retry under current authority and transfers saved input once. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16965, #17053 and #17317. These repairs preserve work and contain old executors. This change fixes the subsequent chat admission boundary. A search found no overlapping open reconnect/admission fix. **What happened?** Ordinary task Retry returned `chat_failed_run_retry_not_authorized` after the same GitHub App reconnected. The endpoint was healthy, but the saved request still carried its old runtime generation. A newer queued follow-up also made Retry reject the older failed request instead of continuing the follow-up. No successor was admitted. HTTP qualification found two related defects. Concurrent clicks could omit the canonical chat action from a response. Signed-in board dispatch also passed an incomplete task resource to the permission resolver, which rejected a permitted mutation. **Expected behavior** A deliberate Retry checks current authority for the same App, sender, repository, conversation and task. It continues saved input once. A later reconnect, changed App, revoked access or changed source prevents dispatch. Old runtime callbacks remain invalid. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit a GitHub request and record a failed native run. 2. Save a follow-up while execution is blocked. 3. Reconnect the same GitHub App. 4. Click ordinary task Retry. 5. Before this change, admission returns 409. Without reconnect, the newer input alone also causes 409. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline source: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. **Deployment mode** Source checkout on macOS. Regressions use real PostgreSQL transactions and the assembled chat, HTTP route and heartbeat admission services. Provider boundaries are simulated. No hosted recovery is claimed. ## What Changed - Record the admitting App identity for new GitHub deliveries. Historical deliveries can use their original working-comment binding. Reauthorize deliberate Retry under a pinned current generation and credential-reference fingerprint. - Select the complete saved-input queue from the failed run's actual conversation before replaying the older failed batch. Keep exact-run Retry bounded while ordinary task Retry supports larger queues. Transfer its receipts with the dispatch transaction. Recover the same ownership after restart or a lost response. Release unadmitted input after a definitive rejection. - Preserve canonical chat action IDs across concurrent clicks. Supply current task status and assignment fields to board mutation checks. - Keep exact-run Retry, stale webhook, containment, source integrity, publication, pause and budget checks. Update recovery contracts and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: all three new PostgreSQL regressions failed on unchanged production code. Reconnect failed at chat authorization. Newer input failed at the obsolete-source guard. The combined case also failed. - Green: 61 selected chat integration cases passed. These include 27 new cases and 34 existing cases for containment, retained-source recovery, exact batches and source revocation. - A further red/green PostgreSQL regression reproduces the 51-message overflow identified during review. All 51 messages reach one successor, including a later Retry of that successor. A separate 52-message consumed-batch regression also passes. - A competing conversation retains its own deferred message. Distinct automatic policy contexts are checked independently; revoking only the later policy blocks the whole unadmitted batch. Batch validation still rejects a later message with a changed App binding or deleted source. A real PostgreSQL query capture reduced the 51-message preparation from 1,103 calls to fewer than 180. - All 16 durable task Retry tests passed. - The real HTTP route returns 202 and admits one queued successor for concurrent deliveries. Fault injection covers rollback during input handoff, response loss after dispatch commit, and permission loss when resuming an existing durable wait. A wait only adopts input after current admission succeeds; a one-shot settlement marker keeps status projection read-only. A new deliberate Retry works after another reconnect or a failed successor. - Current-App, repository, sender, source edit/delete, reassignment, endpoint pause and board-permission controls passed. Historical deliveries remain unchanged. - Final-head CI: 55 checks passed, three expected skips. The unchanged minute-bucket rate-limit assertion passed locally against PostgreSQL and on its one CI rerun. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Workspace typecheck and full build passed. Map alignment, module boundaries, UI token gates and `git diff --check` passed. - Hosted task recovery and a live provider turn remain unverified. The local tests hold agent capacity to inspect admission without starting a model or publishing a GitHub response. ## Risks - A deliberate GitHub Retry can admit old saved input under current connection authority. It requires the same App binding and current access. It pins that admission; it does not rewrite the historical delivery or make stale callbacks valid. - The durable chat queue has an optional admission callback. It transfers input only when the transaction contains a valid queued execution or saved wait. Other chat consumers have no callback and retain their behavior. - No migration, Cloud dependency, deployment, configuration change or workspace cleanup is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection, code execution and GitHub tools. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ad861a7f94 |
fix(runner): allow bounded controller admission before welcome (#17735)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and preserves their work across execution failures. > - Native Runner authentication exchanges a one-use bootstrap ticket for a connection lease. > - The controller must admit the connection and persist that lease before it sends welcome. > - Runnerd waited only two seconds for welcome, even when its connection setup budget allowed more time. > - A slow valid welcome therefore looked like a consumed-ticket failure before provider work could start. > - This pull request uses the existing ten-second connection setup budget for welcome. > - The benefit is reliable startup during bounded controller delays, with the same authentication and replay checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A valid native Runner bootstrap can fail while the controller completes admission. The runner then reports `bootstrap connection failed closed; provide a fresh one-use ticket`. A later recovery attempt can report an indeterminate authority and hide the startup error behind a finalization deadline. **Expected behavior** A valid welcome can arrive within the connection setup budget. An earlier execution or reconnect deadline still ends the wait. A missing or invalid welcome never permits bootstrap-ticket replay. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the real Runner WebSocket transport against an authenticated controller. 2. Hold the welcome for three seconds after the client proof arrives. 3. Before this change, authentication fails with `WebSocket authentication message deadline elapsed` and `bootstrap_maybe_consumed: true`. 4. With this change, the runner accepts the bound lease and restores the normal read timeout. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `a1f77821b9` before the production change. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Native Paperclip Runner. The transport is shared by its provider drivers. Related: #17401 reduces repeated work in warm-recovery admission. This change covers delayed welcome delivery for fresh authentication too. It does not replace that optimization. #17594 addresses a separate lifetime failure after controller outages. ## What Changed - Use the ten-second connection setup budget for the authenticated welcome. - Keep the execution/reconnect deadline as an earlier bound. - Add real WebSocket regressions for a delayed welcome and a shorter lifecycle deadline. - Add a real Runner process test proving a delayed admission starts one provider and keeps it through two turns. - Document the startup contract and its recovery verification scope. ## Verification - Red: the delayed-welcome regression failed against unchanged production code with a message deadline and `bootstrap_maybe_consumed: true`. - Green: all 402 Runner core library tests pass. The suite includes authentication, ticket fencing after a lost welcome, identity rejection, replay, and no repeated provider effects. - Map and module checks pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The new process integration test passes (one provider process, one thread, two turns, suspended with an empty outbox). - Live acceptance at this branch's production Runner build passes on macOS arm64 with pinned OpenCode 1.18.34 and `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017`: delay admission by three seconds, create a file, suspend, resume the same provider session under a fresh run authority, read the first file, and write a second file. Both useful outputs match exactly; final runner state is suspended. - Preserved setup failures: a non-pinned executable was rejected, and the debug binary exceeded cold provider startup admission. The pinned executable and release binary passed. The first harness also tried to reuse a completed task object; the follow-up used the normal resume path. Exactly two paid model turns ran. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after the Mac exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity (`could not create semaphores`); it is not a local full-suite pass. - Current-head CI is green at `df5d5494c9f9f444114aaf12e095a554110d2e14`: all checks passing or non-applicably skipped, zero failures or pending checks. The additional Superagent security scan triggered by ready-for-review also passed. These include all general/serialized test shards, Runner Rust/Vitest, E2E, typecheck, build, and the final verify gate. Greptile reviewed that exact commit at 5/5 with no findings or inline comments. - This proves the actual native Runner/provider path locally. It does not prove rollout or recovery on a hosted Linux/amd64 execution environment. ## Risks - A stalled welcome can take up to eight seconds longer to fail when the configured lifecycle allows it. Shorter execution/reconnect deadlines still take precedence. - Authentication proofs, credential expiry, identity binding, and one-use-ticket fencing remain enforced. - This does not repair provider-side grammar errors or authorize replay of an indeterminate historical run. Recovery of existing work requires the normal stopped-owner and retained-state checks. - No schema or migration change. A new Runner binary must reach the execution host before this change affects remote runs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact serving submodel identifier and context window 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4b89eec644 |
fix: check selected workspace projects before offering retry (#17552)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery explains access failures before a user retries saved work. > - A task project and its selected workspace are separate settings. > - Moving a task can retain files from a project that the agent cannot access. > - The recovery notice checked only the task project or a past failure record. > - This pull request checks the projects required by the current workspace selection. > - The notice now offers Retry only after those project checks pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #17509. Related: #13230 concerns workspace binding consistency; this fix changes recovery presentation only. **What happened?** A task could show “Project access is ready” after moving to an allowed project while keeping a repository from a denied project. Typed failures could also keep the notice blocked after an authorized workspace replacement. **Expected behavior** Use the current task, workspace, and source project requirements. Honor a valid pending selection for the next admission. Keep stale, archived, or missing selections blocked without offering a project-permission repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose selected source belongs to a denied project. 2. Persist a project access failure. 3. Move the task to an allowed project without changing its selected files. 4. Reload the task. The notice must still explain the access block. 5. Select an allowed source through the workspace API. Reload the task. The notice must offer an explicit retry without starting work. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced after #17509 on master. The regression failed on the old projection and passed with this change. ## What Changed - Batch the current workspace project requirements for tasks with project access failures. - Check retained workspace and source projects, plus valid pending workspace selections. - Keep unknown historical denial projects unnamed. Do not expose unrelated project identifiers. - Keep unavailable workspace selections in the non-retryable failure state. Adding project permissions cannot repair these selections. - Add real database regressions for project moves, pending and applied repairs, stale revisions, archived pending selections, and foreign-company workspaces. - Update the recovery contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red-green regression with the real issue update service and execution access check. - Focused tests: 17 tests passed across `agent-project-access.test.ts` and `task-interruption-presentation.test.ts` after rebasing on current master. - Browser: the retained source stays blocked when the task project is allowed. Manage project access opens Permissions / Trust with Allowed projects and Add project. - The normal workspace API accepted an allowed pending selection. Returning to the task showed “Project access is ready” and Retry. Permissions and run count did not change. - Full repository typecheck and build passed before the final presentation adjustment. The final adjustment passed server typecheck, server build, and all 17 focused tests. The stale, archived, and foreign-workspace cases failed before this adjustment. Map and module-boundary checks passed. - Browser: an archived pending workspace shows the existing failure notice without Retry or a project-permission action. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after 15 native runtime database tests failed because embedded PostgreSQL could not initialize on this host. The focused database tests passed on isolated PostgreSQL 18 in Docker. All technical CI checks passed on `a6e9f977`. Fresh CI and review are required for the presentation adjustment. One Runner shard passed on its single rerun after a provider shutdown failure. A fresh local Runner build also passed that case and its reuse sibling. The prior Paperclip Review could not publish its assessment. Its saved presentation finding is addressed. Merge waits for a fresh published review and all checks on the current head. ## Risks - Presentation must follow workspace selection precedence. Tests cover retained bindings, valid pending changes, stale changes, and company isolation. - This adds at most three bounded reads for tasks with a project access failure. It adds no reads for this purpose on unaffected tasks. - Dispatch remains the authorization authority. This change does not grant access, move files, or start execution. No migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact serving model identifier and context window 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5c3dce09b5 |
fix(runner): preserve verified remote artifacts across controller releases (#17512)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and owns their task authority. > - Remote native agents can keep working while their controller restarts. > - The controller must authenticate the same runner and verify its provider files before recovery. > - The current path compares a retained provider pack with the new controller release. A release change can reject intact files. > - The new controller binary digest can also reject the original daemon during PRP authentication. > - This PR records the admitted release authority in private controller state and uses it for exact process reattachment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A remote Claude session started and used tools. After controller shutdown, recovery failed with `runner_remote_provider_artifact_incompatible`. The transport combined stderr into stdout, so the error omitted the verifier reason. The historical rejected manifest is unavailable. This PR reproduces controller release drift as a cause; it does not claim that the historical mismatch is proven. Reaching pack verification implies the earlier exact-process/controller-identity checks passed. That supports a preserved-state recovery path but is not a direct inspection of the deployed volume. **Expected behavior** A compatible, unchanged remote runner can reattach after a controller release changes. Full package hashes, exact process scope, protocol capabilities, and authenticated runner identity must still pass. Fresh launches use the current release. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Verify and admit a remote native session with release A. 2. Preserve its runner process and replace the controller with release B. 3. Reattach the original process. The old path compares its pack with B and fails at `manifest mismatch`. 4. With this fix, the controller reads its saved A authority and verifies all A hashes. Changed files still fail. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master `470cb34c0e42cb9d0b232d0bcf5d45cc7b0a81ca`; rebased onto `a3675ddcdf`. **Deployment mode** Native remote runner on a Daytona-backed Paperclip Computer. Local acceptance uses isolated Linux containers and actual packaged artifacts. Related work: #17361 and #17448 handle runner upgrade and qualification permissions. #17097 and #17439 add durable controller checkpoints and server adoption. That stack can skip remote artifact preparation with a saved checkpoint. This PR fixes the current file-backed path and retains full provider-pack verification; it has no checkpoint schema or empty-disk controller recovery. ## What Changed - Save the complete verified pack manifest and authenticated runner version/digest after successful session admission. - Bind the receipt to company, agent, workspace, session, runner, environment lease, remote directory, and provider descriptor. Keep it outside guest backup directories. - Reuse the saved authority for exact reattachment. Keep current release selection for fresh launches and explicit session replacement. - Fail closed for mismatched or corrupt receipts. Historical sessions without a receipt retain the current release integrity gate. - Report bounded, redacted verifier output from both transport streams. Warn on receipt write failure while returning the already admitted session to its owner. - Add scope, persistence, replacement, storage failure, and backend wiring regressions. Update recovery documentation and the feature map. ## Verification - Test-first red: the original selection chose release B instead of A after controller recreation. The new receipt regression passes. A separate red test showed the missing stdout diagnostic; it passes after the diagnostic fix. - Authority and diagnostic suites: 49 tests pass. Backend pack, process adoption, and harness persistence selection: 47 tests pass. - Actual Linux provider image: complete A manifest/artifact verification passed; controller source-revision drift failed on the old path; saved A authority passed; a modified ACPX sidecar failed its SHA-256 check. - Actual native Linux runner: authenticated a session, detached the controller, changed the controller manifest and binary, then authenticated the original PID and provider session with saved authority. There were zero duplicate spawns, zero new provider turns, no stop/suspend, and the workspace file remained. This probe used the real runner with a deterministic Codex fixture; it is separate from the real ACPX package integrity proof. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed. The full native executor suite first hit host PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion. The complete changed files then passed 864/864 tests with separate real PostgreSQL databases in a disposable Linux container. The temporary local fixture changed only database provisioning and used normal repository migrations. Current-head CI also passed the full required test, Runner, browser, typecheck, and build lanes. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. These structural checks do not prove live recovery. - Current head `48fca2ae33d99f7f6d2fe12f431cf76d25185c70`: 55 successful checks, two conditional skips, no pending or failed checks; fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero findings and zero unresolved review threads. Commitperclip quality review passed. - No original task was retried or changed. Existing Daytona access could not resolve the original sandbox or its image; a fresh staging Claude recovery is not claimed. ## Risks This prevents recurrence for sessions admitted with the new receipt. It does not retroactively recover the historical failed run. Saved authority exists only after this change has admitted a session. It cannot repair an ambiguous historical launch or restore a receipt on an empty replacement controller. A stale protocol or modified pack remains a hard failure. Receipt write errors warn without losing the live session handle, but later recovery still needs matching authority. The broader checkpoint stack changes the same server preparation and runner-artifact option and will require a deliberate integration. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d0c8f0b090 |
fix: explain project access denials and add an authorized repair path (#17509)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents may read only the projects in their allowed scope. > - Workspace setup correctly stops a task outside that scope. > - The task previously showed a generic failure, and agent settings did not offer an additive repair. > - This pull request explains the denial and lets authorized operators add projects while preserving other restrictions. > - The saved task then offers an explicit retry. Saving access does not start work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A project access denial appeared as an ordinary failed attempt. Operators could not add a second allowed project from agent settings. **Expected behavior** The task should explain the denied access and link to a working permission editor. The editor should preserve existing scope and restrictions, enforce operator authority, and retain drafts after a failed save. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose project is outside its allowed projects. 2. Let workspace setup deny project access. 3. Open the task, follow Manage project access, add the project, save, reload, and return to the task. 4. Confirm that the saved message remains and Retry task is a separate action. ## What Changed - Record a typed, non-retryable project denial before provider dispatch. Project denials do not enter automatic continuation or provider comment policy. - Project current and historical setup denials into a safe task notice. Keep unrelated failures, prior assignees, and approval/pause/budget gates separate. Recheck current project authority, including standard trust and root-issue grants. Accepted retries keep their working state. - Add board-only project-access reads and additive saves under the agent row lock. Enforce company scope, agent-management authority, pending-approval restrictions, and an audit record for new additions. - Add the production notice and searchable multi-project editor, including read-only, saving, cancellation, and failed-save states. Preserve the return-to-task query through canonical agent redirects. - Register board-only project-access routes in OpenAPI with a strict request schema. - Add production Storybook examples and API/persistence/concurrency regressions. Retain the approved design snapshot and update the behavior maps and implementation contract. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm build-storybook`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`. - Passed: 11 permission/projection tests and 30 run-completion tests against an isolated PostgreSQL database. These cover historical failures, concurrent additions, idempotent audit, preserved restrictions, foreign projects, read-only users, agent self-grants, and no automatic wakeup. - Passed: all 27 OpenAPI route tests, including route coverage and the new board-only request/response contract. - Browser: the real app displayed a historical denial; Manage project access opened the editor; saving retained the original project and survived reload; Return to task showed the ready notice. Saving created one audit event and zero runs. Explicit Retry returned 202 and reached the separate sandbox requirement, which remained enforced. No external provider was used. - All five production Storybook interaction checks pass: blocked task, save, cancellation, failed-save recovery, and read-only settings. These use fixture callbacks; durable authorization is covered separately above. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally but stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures caused by macOS semaphore exhaustion. Full-suite CI is required before merge. The separate UI suite passed all 9,095 tests. The 41 focused server regressions also passed after rebasing onto the latest master. A further 26 recovery-classification tests pass, including a red-to-green regression for automatic continuation after a project denial. ## Risks - No schema migration. The new endpoint only adds same-company project IDs and preserves the rest of the stored policy. - The historical notice recognizes one exact setup denial message. It does not display arbitrary run errors or disclose a different source project's identity. - The retry still passes all current admission and isolation checks. The notice does not promise that other execution requirements are satisfied. - Related open work: #13309 covers inherited secret restrictions; #11234 covers the broader repository catalog. This change does not replace either policy surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code execution and browser tools. The precise runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` 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 server and full UI suites; full-suite infrastructure limit 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> |
||
|
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
|
3f1ad6b25b |
fix(chat): resume task Retry after retained-source containment (#17317)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through task and execution ownership. > - A task Retry must retain the user's request while the system verifies an old executor. > - Connected conversations also retain their external principal and accepted source batch. > - Chat Retry admission required containment before it could save a wait for that recovery. > - A saved chat receipt could also remain deferred after containment became available. > - This pull request lets the exact recovery-bound request wait and resume through its chat owner. > - Normal admission still checks containment, current access and policy before one successor starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An ordinary task Retry on a connected conversation failed with `failed_chat_retry_not_authorized` while its retained remote executor still needed verification. The new recovery generation existed, but the chat action failed before it could save a dispatch wait. This occurred after the repairs in #17267 were confirmed live. The local regression found a second gap. A processed chat action with a deferred wake was not reconsidered after containment. Re-entering normal admission also tried to insert its existing durable receipt again. A historical hold for the same failed run could also hide the current Retry's workspace strategy, so the request still waited after the old executor was contained. Preparation could then read that sibling instead of the recovery record that owned the fresh successor, losing the fresh-workspace decision. **Expected behavior** Save the exact authorized Retry while its matching recovery generation verifies the executor. Once containment is recorded, reconsider the same chat receipt through normal admission. Start one successor with the original source batch. Keep publication, principal, pause and budget checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit a GitHub or Telegram request and record a failed native run with a retained remote lease. 2. Leave the executor's termination unconfirmed and exhaust its prior recovery generation. 3. Use ordinary task Retry to create a new recovery generation. 4. Process the connected Retry. The old admission code fails instead of retaining a wait. 5. With a deferred receipt, record exact containment and reconcile again. The old dispatch path leaves it stranded. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from `412914cfa78d5abefcc34d3eb8d4bb86e461caac`. The branch is rebased onto current master. **Deployment mode** Hosted tenant for the reported failure. Isolated local PostgreSQL and the assembled heartbeat/chat services for the regression. Refs #17267 and #16965. This change does not add a Cloud dependency or change the absence protocol. ## What Changed - Permit a saved admission wait only for the exact current task Retry and active source recovery generation. - Keep promotion and execution dependent on independent containment proof. - Bind a Retry to active automatic recovery without replacing its generation, attempt count or deadline. - Share the current exact Retry strategy across historical holds for the same run. Retain each hold's stop and effect checks. - Select the canonical recovery record that proves the committed fresh successor during workspace preparation. - Let task receipt reconciliation return the same deferred action to its chat owner. - Recheck current board and external authority, then update the existing wake atomically with its successor. - Preserve the exact chat source batch. Keep generic board-comment filtering unchanged. - Add GitHub and Telegram cases for waiting, containment, one successor, stale generations, source edits, endpoint pause and supersession. - Update recovery documentation and capability maps. ## Verification - Red: real PostgreSQL tests reproduced the admission rejection for GitHub and Telegram. Six active-recovery cases then failed on the generation-ID assumption. Two same-run historical-hold cases remained deferred after containment on the old strategy lookup. A preparation regression then returned no readiness when the historical hold was stored first. - Green: 73 selected chat integration tests and 394 continuation, task Retry, workspace recovery, recovery-state and workspace-preparation tests passed. The chat tests use the real chat admission and heartbeat queue. Unrelated capacity stays occupied so no real provider starts. They assert no executor before containment, one successor afterward, unchanged source leases while waiting, preserved recovery budgets, and denial after authority changes. A separate source hold still blocks work. Both sibling insertion orders pass through the committed-readiness lookup and real workspace preparation: the new directory has independent Git storage and files, and unpublished old work remains intact. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed after the review fixes. The source build passed on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`. - The local host reached its PostgreSQL semaphore limit. Successful runs used a test-only loader to reduce disposable cluster connection and worker limits. No repository database helper or application setting changed. - The full local `pnpm test:run` began before the final review edits, failed in its first server phase and was stopped after those failures. Later phases did not run. This is not a full local pass. The transient Retry-notice case passes after fixture isolation; the four Discord close-owned publication cases also pass in isolation. Other broad-run failure causes are not established. - Exact-head CI and security checks pass on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Optional Paperclip Review completed neutral with a 5/5 static assessment of all 11 changed files and no findings; it did not run tests or hosted acceptance. All 57 current-head checks are terminal: 54 success, two skipped and the optional neutral review, with no failures or pending checks. - The real hosted workflow confirmed that the deployed absence repair recorded containment. A later ordinary UI Retry was accepted and saved a durable request, but it remains behind the historical source hold. The useful existing review remains unchanged. This follow-up is not deployed; a live successful successor and final task disposition remain unverified. No missing files are claimed recovered. ## Risks - The existing task reconciliation sweep can restage a deferred chat action. This reuses its receipt and generation; it does not grant new execution or publication authority. - Dispatch must keep the board Retry identity separate from the connected request's principal. The regression checks these bindings and preserves current chat authorization at each phase. - Historical holds reuse a strategy only from the locked same-run recovery that names the current Retry intent. A different run, malformed recovery record or independent source hold remains fenced. - Unknown executors without a matching active recovery still fail admission. Promotion and execution require containment even when admission saved a wait. - No schema or API shape changes. No credential changes, manual deployment or service restart. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution and browser verification. The exact served model variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4c57da3708 |
fix(recovery): continue Retry after verified sandbox absence (#17267)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Task Retry must reconcile a stopped native execution before starting another one. > - A retained sandbox can disappear while workspace preservation is pending. > - A tenant-key error does not prove absence, especially after credential rotation. > - This pull request accepts only a short-lived Cloud observation bound to the exact source and current preservation owner. > - Normal Retry admission can then continue in a fresh workspace without claiming that missing files were recovered. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run stops with workspace preservation pending. Its Daytona allocation no longer exists. Recovery tries to reopen it, then cannot confirm a stop. The ordinary Retry remains deferred behind cleanup and repeats a transient failure. **Expected behavior** Cloud must independently confirm absence in the recorded provider organization. Core must verify that proof and settle executor containment under the current physical owner. Normal Retry admission must enforce all existing gates and create at most one successor. The old run must remain failed and missing files must remain unavailable. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist a failed native run with a retained Daytona lease and an exhausted workspace-recovery generation. 2. Remove the exact provider allocation so reopen and stop cannot confirm it. 3. Request ordinary task Retry. 4. Observe that recovery reports `provider_unavailable` and leaves the Retry deferred. **Paperclip version/commit** Reproduced on source based on `6d44b80a5edbcc9f69bfc3d520994e70aa9fab6d` with the prior preservation and Retry repairs present. **Deployment mode** Cloud tenant with native Runner and a retained Daytona source. The local acceptance uses real Core, Cloud, PostgreSQL, signatures, native Runner and UI, with deterministic model and provider HTTP boundaries. Refs #16962, #16965, #17053. These repairs cover completion proposals, durable Retry and retained-source reopening. They do not establish absence of a missing provider allocation. Related #16809 preserves orphan sandbox leases; this change requires independent proof before settling an absent allocation. ## What Changed - Add an HTTPS client for a purpose-separated, host-bound Cloud sandbox-absence capability. - Verify signature, audience, stack, expiry, source identities and current physical-owner token. - Settle only executor absence with a metadata and owner compare-and-set. Preserve source protection and record that workspace contents are unavailable. - Leave successor creation, approval, pause, budget and uncertain-effect checks to normal Retry admission. - Document the protocol and update the recovery maps. ## Verification - Red: the new persisted-state regression returned `provider_unavailable` and scheduled recovery on the unfixed code. Expected: `source_unavailable` with a contained old execution. - Green: 384 focused tests pass across workspace recovery, signed absence, explicit continuation, ordinary Retry, workspace preparation and provider-owned fresh workspaces. - Signature tests reject forged, expired and mismatched proofs. HTTP failures or missing configuration grant no authority. - Two missing allocations are both reconciled before Retry. A simulated interruption reuses the first durable absence receipt. - Concurrent Retry admission produces one queued fresh successor. It records no successful old result and no recovered-file claim. - Browser acceptance at this change: one ordinary Retry, two provider absence reads for two retained sources, one fresh native execution, useful confirmation and Done after reload. The old run remains failed. Existing saved review and newer local file bytes remain unchanged. The deterministic model does not perform external publication; this is local protocol acceptance, not live provider recovery. - `pnpm typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` pass. - A complete local `pnpm test:run` pass was not obtained. The first run hit a 15-second timeout in an unchanged status-card test. It was stopped to apply review fixes before the remaining phases ran. The unchanged status-card suite then passed 25/25 in isolation with the repository short temporary-path convention. - CI exposed a chat nonduplication assertion that compared unordered database rows. The assertion now sorts both complete row sets by run ID. Its focused test passes. - All 58 current-head checks are terminal on `1e2e881f6b6b1ae1fbfe1f2b2922657ce46e1470`: 55 success, two unaffected Storybook skips, and one neutral advisory review. Required CI, build, E2E and security checks pass. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The optional Paperclip review is neutral advisory 5/5 with nine-file source coverage and no findings; it did not independently run tests. - One unchanged native-runtime test timed out at five seconds on its first CI attempt. Its suite passed 33/33 in isolation; a single retry of that lane passed without code changes. ## Risks - The companion Cloud endpoint must ship before this consumer. Older or unavailable Cloud versions return no proof and retain the current hold. - A valid absence receipt permits a fresh workspace attempt. It cannot restore missing remote files, establish task success or authorize repeating an uncertain external effect. - This PR has not been deployed. The original task remains unrecovered pending rollout and reconciliation of its existing Retry. - No schema, credential, provider-resource or fleet changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection, code execution and browser tools. The exact backend variant and context-window size are not exposed by 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused scope above; full local run limitation recorded) - [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
|
eaacadeba3 |
fix(recovery): let preservation owners reopen retained sources (#17053)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must save retained workspace files before ordinary execution can resume. > - The environment runtime blocks access to retained sources to prevent unsafe reuse or deletion. > - The recovery worker also used that ordinary resume path. > - The guard returned no lease, so recovery reported an invalid source binding before it could save files. > - This pull request gives the physical preservation owner a separate, source-bound resume path. > - Ordinary execution and destructive cleanup keep their existing guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16965. **What happened?** A retained workspace with a workspaceRestoreRecovery marker could not recover through the real environment runtime. The runtime returned null before calling the provider. Recovery classified this as source_binding_invalid. Earlier recovery fixtures replaced the runtime facade, so they did not exercise this guard. **Expected behavior** The verified preservation owner can reopen its exact stopped allocation to save files. Other callers remain blocked. Recovery preserves newer local files and does not start another agent or repeat a completed external action. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seed a terminal source run with a retained sandbox, a recovery action, and the workspaceRestoreRecovery lease marker. 2. Give the source a verified stop receipt. 3. Call recoverRetainedWorkspace through environmentRuntimeService. 4. Before this change, the recovery action returns to blocked with source_binding_invalid. No files are copied. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d33b40a5c3 |
fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4145b5048a |
docs: deepen task, approval, secret, and recovery maps (#16994)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys. Its access map describes the matching agent paths. > - The recent index and capability additions improved discovery and breadth. > - Broad baseline records still combined operations with different actors, permissions, and retry behavior. > - This pull request reviews the existing task, approval, secret, and recovery capabilities at operation level. > - Each operation now has its own access boundary, source evidence, and verification recipe. Source review remains separate from live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987, #16990, #16025. These related pull requests are merged. The search found no open duplicate or matching issue. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The paired task, questions-and-approvals, secrets, and recovery files under `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** Baseline records do not show enough detail to verify who can perform each action, which state must persist, or what happens after a denial, race, or retry. A declared scenario tool can also be mistaken for an admitted production tool. **Suggested fix** Split the four areas into source-reviewed operation records. Add compact checkpoints to their user recipes. Preserve existing capability IDs and the map schema. ## What Changed - Promote 27 existing capability records to `operation-reviewed`, with 125 operation records: tasks 32, questions and approvals 39, secrets 28, recovery 26. - Give each operation its own API, agent surface, policy, source evidence, verification recipe, and remaining gap. - Separate human, legacy agent, run JWT, native binding, mode, and resource authority. Split operations where those rules differ. - Correct production completion paths, plan acceptance and handoff, question dismissal and withdrawal, secret proposal authority, runtime recovery grants, and explicit duplicate-risk decisions. - Preserve access gaps found in source, including the binding-proposal dependency cascade and narrower native/CLI fields. - Add one checkpoint table per product recipe for saved results, denial, races, and retries. - Keep all 191 existing capability IDs. Change only eight Markdown files. Keep every operation's evidence `source-only` and verification `not-run`; the subset below does not prove an entire operation across its actors and surfaces. ## Verification Source review uses revision `3bbc2104b65caf9f7763938a01260a5673e12f7a`. Read-only area reviews and a second source review covered the changed pairs. Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas, 191 capability IDs, valid references and fields. This is structural verification. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 17 passed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`: 308 files, 2,899 stories. Generated outputs remain ignored. - Capability comparison with the base: all 191 IDs unchanged; the four reviewed areas contain 27 capabilities and 125 source-only operation records. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - `git diff --check`. - Focused existing interaction and proposal route tests: 80 passed. The two selected DB-backed suites skipped 119 tests because local embedded PostgreSQL could not start. These skipped tests are not passes. Live subset on a fresh local instance with a disposable PostgreSQL container: - Created the company and an unassigned task through the browser. Added a comment and completed the task. The saved status and comment survived reload. - Created a managed secret with inert dummy data through the browser. Its metadata and version survived reload. The metadata response did not contain the dummy value. - Created a question fixture through board REST. Invalid input returned 422 and left it pending. Browser dismissal kept it pending and preserved the draft. Reopening restored the choice. Submission survived reload. A duplicate response returned 409 and left the saved answer unchanged. - Used a real issued legacy agent API key. Task read and safe company-secret catalog returned 200. Full secret listing and run-only secret list/value routes returned 403. Revoked the key after the checks. - Read an empty recovery projection. Resolving a nonexistent action returned 404 and left the task unchanged. This did not execute recovery. - Closed the owned browser tab and stopped only the verified test runtime and labelled database container. Evidence survived cleanup. No provider or model ran. Limits and retained failures: - Native embedded PostgreSQL launch failed because the host could not allocate semaphores. The container-backed app was the successful alternate environment. - Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted. Fifteen DB-dependent native-session cases failed at database startup, and several DB suites skipped. The run was stopped after repeated failures of that prerequisite. The full local suite did not pass. - The sandboxed build attempt failed at the local tsx IPC socket. The required build passed outside the sandbox. - The first CI build job passed compilation and production boot, then its npm-install check was interrupted when the runner received a shutdown signal. The corrected head passed the full CI run, including the build and public-install checks. - Initial Greptile review found the recovery note field and native search/history limits were inaccurate. Corrected `resolutionNote` and the production cap of 100, then reran the map checks. Greptile reviewed the corrected head at 5/5; both earlier threads are resolved. - An initial harness used a nonexistent generic secret-value URL and received 404. The actual mapped agent routes were then checked separately. An initial recovery assertion expected 409; the actual missing-action contract returned 404. These were harness corrections, not product fixes. - Native run bindings, two-person ownership, secret delivery/rotation, external vaults, provider-stop proof, workspace repair, and actual recovery execution remain unexecuted. The map does not claim those journeys passed. The separate external **Paperclip Review** check is still in progress on `904509df80cc6de16d36906a410a66786f619b20`. The reviewer reports that its full changed-file request is pending. CI is green and Greptile is 5/5, but this external review has not published a final assessment. Its review service must finish that request and assessment. ## Risks Documentation can become stale as policy and runtime bindings change. Each operation cites source and retains its verification gaps. The records describe observed enforcement; they do not authorize broader access or certify live behavior. This pull request changes no product code, schema, or permission enforcement. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`; 475,000-token context window; xhigh reasoning; tool use and code execution. Read-only source agents assisted the area reviews. ## 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 (focused map and route checks; full-suite host blocker recorded above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (existing map regression tests cover this documentation-only change) - [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
|
9ef434fe79 |
docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 - [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
|
d84061b923 |
fix(runner): recover journaled completion proposals (#16962)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native runs preserve provider sessions across controller restarts. > - A completion event can reach durable storage before the next session checkpoint. > - Recovery advanced the event cursor but lost the saved completion proposal. > - The completed turn then appeared to need another provider turn to report its result. > - This change restores the exact active turn's proposal before advancing the cursor. > - Recovery can finalize completed work without repeating its external actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a controller restart, a native run could fail with `native_finalization_missing` even though `run.result.proposed` was already durable. The recovered driver skipped that event when its cursor advanced, so the result was absent from its state. Automatic disposition retries could then encounter outstanding tool receipts and exhaust recovery. **Expected behavior** Restore the saved result for the exact active turn. Wait for provider termination, then use normal finalization. Do not start another provider turn to repeat completed work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native Codex task and save its active-turn checkpoint. 2. Persist its completion proposal, then lose the controller before another checkpoint. 3. Recover the same run after the provider completes. Before this change, finalization reports a missing result. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `92b238137b`. The repair is based on `7c247243e5`. **Deployment mode** Native Runner with Codex. The incident used a remote sandbox; the regression covers controller event recovery. Related: #12845 and #15297. The older #12241 addresses provider process continuity; this change repairs the controller's saved event projection. ## What Changed - Restore valid completion proposals for the checkpoint's exact active turn during event replay. - Reject conflicting, invalid, or incorrectly bound proposals. Ignore proposals from another turn and prevent adoption after a newer turn starts. - Keep provider termination and normal finalization as separate requirements. - Add eight behavioral cases using the real Codex driver and a simulated transport, and document the recovery contract and verification scope. ## Verification - Red: the new restart regression failed with `native_finalization_missing` before the production change. - Green: 254 tests passed across the native runtime, backend adapter, and Codex recovery suites. The new cases check no repeated provider work, no early finalization, duplicate proposals, conflicts, invalid proposals, and stale turn/session bindings. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. All CI gates passed on `2ac025a15c`; Greptile rated that commit 5/5 with no outstanding findings. The full local `pnpm test:run` was started after completing the embedded PostgreSQL installation, then stopped while still running once the complete CI test matrix passed; it is not reported as a completed local run. - Real local acceptance passed on `2ac025a15c` with the production Rust Runner transport, Codex CLI `0.160.0`, and `gpt-6.1-sol` on macOS arm64. Persisted the completion proposal while retaining the older active-turn checkpoint; let the provider finish without persisting its later controller events; stopped the exact owned runner/provider; recovered the same provider session and turn. Observed one accepted result, one durable `turn.start` command, and one line in the receipt file. Hosted sandbox restart and recovery of the original stopped task have not been performed. - Initial setup failures are retained: dependency drift caused diff-viewer type errors, and skipped PostgreSQL postinstall links prevented database startup. Dependency alignment and the package postinstall repaired those local prerequisites. Probe setup iterations failed on a direct-provider response schema, invalid probe input fields, and an original provider that still held its writer lock. Acceptance uses the production transport, validated input, and exact-owner shutdown. No production code changes were made for those probe setup failures. ## Risks - A stale proposal could finalize the wrong work. Recovery requires the checkpoint's active turn and matching run, session, and source. It rejects conflicting results and waits for provider termination. - The change uses the existing paginated recovery scan. It adds no database query per event or new retry allowance. - No schema migration or change to task authorization is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served model snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The live acceptance probe uses `gpt-6.1-sol`. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bc091f0a21 |
fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. **What happened?** A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. **Expected behavior** The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8a3d2cb04f |
fix(recovery): avoid recursive holds for undispatched waits (#16894)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Queue admission must stop work while a previous execution needs recovery. > - The final dispatch gate can cancel a queued run before it starts. > - Legacy recovery treats this known wait as an unknown provider outcome and creates another hold. > - The extra hold can survive repair of the original execution and leave saved messages stuck. > - This pull request uses one database proof to prevent the extra incident and recognize old false holds. > - Saved input can then pass through normal admission with the original work and safety gates intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15483. **What happened?** The dispatcher writes an `execution_reconciliation_required` cancellation when an existing recovery hold denies a queued run. No runtime is selected and no provider starts. Legacy recovery later creates a `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` action for that cancelled admission. Its settled `replay: blocked` record remains an effective hold after the real source recovery finishes. The task has saved messages but no eligible Retry or Continue action. **Expected behavior** A verified admission denial stays a wait. It must not create another provider-outcome incident. Existing false incidents must stop blocking after the server verifies their recorded source. Real execution, uncertain outcomes and file recovery stay held. The harness determines these infrastructure facts; the user does not certify them in a form. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist a queued-run gate cancellation with its task-bound `executionWait` receipt and no execution authority or resource evidence. 2. Run legacy reconciliation. On the old code, it creates a second incident. 3. Persist the old incident as resolved with replay blocked, then clear the original source hold. 4. Restart queue recovery with saved user messages. On the old code, no successor is admitted. Related work: #15965 covers other pre-start dispatch cancellations but explicitly excludes this existing-hold code and leaves historical holds unchanged. #16634 covers stale-cancel classification and queue drain, without re-evaluating historical effective holds. #15383 covers an operator Stop during conversation startup. This change addresses the existing-hold receipt and its persisted false incident; it does not copy those broader changes. ## What Changed - Add one database proof for a legacy admission denied by an existing execution hold. Require the exact dispatcher receipt, matching task identity, no runtime or process claim, no lease or finalization coordinator, and no execution events. - Use the proof before legacy recovery creates an incident and when it computes effective historical holds. Keep the old audit rows. - Preserve source file obligations and the original recovery action. Keep the normal queue, pause, ownership, company and budget checks. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for incident prevention, old state, concurrent queue recovery, message order, conflicting evidence and scope boundaries. - Update the execution contract and both recovery maps. ## Verification - Red: the regression on unfixed source fails on incident classification, historical hold projection and actual periodic saved-message admission. The other 24 safety cases pass. - Green: all 27 new database cases pass. Two safety assertions were aligned with the existing contract: daily limits stop dispatch after queue promotion; a human comment can intentionally reopen a terminal task. The final regression checks the real daily dispatch gate and agent pause. - Existing `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`: 255 tests pass. Existing legacy recovery and PostgreSQL dispatcher suites: 61 tests pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - GitHub PR CI run `39313204660` passed on `ef6009e656b7c9b4c788480dce322874565960ac`. All 54 successful check-runs and the Snyk status are green. Two optional Storybook checks were skipped. The independent Paperclip Review completed with a neutral check and a 5/5 assessment with no findings. Greptile also reports 5/5 on the same commit. There are no unresolved review threads. - `pnpm test:run` is still running locally. Its overall result is pending; no full local suite pass is claimed. The exact-head GitHub CI suite passed. - A read-only probe of an affected hosted task verifies the same database proof and projects no false blocker with the working source. No live rows were changed. Deployment and a real resumed provider run remain unverified. ## Risks - An incorrect exclusion could admit work with uncertain effects. The proof fails closed on missing receipts, source mismatches, runtime/process ownership, any retained lease, coordinator, execution event or file obligation. Real upstream file recovery remains blocking in the regression. - The effective-hold query adds indexed existence checks scoped to the recorded run and company. It makes no provider calls and performs no database repair writes. - Historical audit records keep their recorded outcome. Only their effective blocking status changes when the server can prove the admission never ran. - No schema, permission, credential or UI form changes are included. Live recovery still needs verification after rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
016e40d532 |
fix(recovery): preserve shutdown export ownership through finalizer drain (#16843)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy adapters must save sandbox files before Paperclip releases their source. > - Graceful shutdown gave each adapter a shared 30-second settlement wait. > - When that wait ended, cleanup could stop the sandbox while the adapter still exported files. > - That race created a restore failure and blocked the next turn. > - This pull request keeps export ownership through the finalizer drain and renews its cleanup fence. > - A successful late export can release its source and schedule one bounded continuation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15857. This corrects the timeout path introduced by the shutdown settlement fence. Refs #16478. That repair clears verified historical holds; this change prevents an active export from losing its source. Refs #16835. That merged fix handles remote native runner ownership. This change handles legacy shutdown settlement. ## What Changed - Keep a late adapter settlement in the shared execution finalizer set. Wait for it before lease release, recovery classification, and retry scheduling. - Renew the exact owned settlement fence every 10 seconds. Use a 30-second lease, one renewal in flight, a one-second database lock timeout, and a five-second statement timeout. Report bounded failure categories without raw database errors or credentials. - Refuse ordinary cleanup while the local adapter still owns settlement. Preserve the explicit owner stop-and-retain path. - Give the finalizer drain a further shared 30-second wait after the initial shutdown drain. - Document the ownership rule, the acceptance recipe, and the controller-loss limit. ## Verification - Red before the repair: the database-backed expired-wait regression expected cleanup denial but received permission to stop the still-owned source. - Green on `615a4382c5`: all 526 tests in `recovery.test.ts`, `legacy-workspace-restore-recovery.test.ts`, `shutdown.test.ts`, and `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` passed. - The assembled heartbeat regression passed. It verifies no early release or retry, joining the late owner, successful cleanup, one durable scheduled continuation, and no duplicate after service reload. - Safety coverage includes other-controller fencing, controller loss, exact source retention, stop-only cancellation, completion winning the status race, and real database lock contention during renewal. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed on the final source revision. - A broad local `pnpm test:run` crossed the rebase and reported eight companion supervision failures. It was stopped and its log retained. The complete companion file then passed all 753 tests on current source. This is not a passing full local suite; current-head CI covers the complete repository checks. - The 34 recovery tests include real lock-timeout classification and credential-shaped error redaction. - Current-head CI: 53 checks passed; two optional Storybook checks skipped. Greptile is 5/5 on `615a4382c5`; no unresolved review threads. - Live sandbox acceptance remains unverified. Three disposable local-controller/Daytona attempts used legacy Codex ACP, `gpt-6-astra`, API-key authentication, and the verified image `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:a2bd08cefb68d9217bdd75cf87a6b51f1705b18a4796eff3f97b2726a548b8fb`. ACP initialization exited before model execution on macOS Node 26.4.0 and again on Node 24.21.0; one attempt exposed a local process-session socket `ECONNRESET`. That does not establish the transport failure's root cause. No attempt reached the delayed export or second turn, so this PR remains draft pending faithful live acceptance. Probe setup defects were retained separately from product failures, and all test-owned sandboxes were cleaned up. ## Risks - Shutdown can spend up to 30 more seconds joining finalizers. The shipped Compose stop grace remains 90 seconds. - Renewal adds at most one database operation per owned run every 10 seconds during shutdown. Lock and statement deadlines bound database contention. The local adapter still protects its source if renewal fails. - Controller death or an export that outlives the whole process still needs retained-source repair. This change does not reconstruct a legacy export after process death or clear historical failed-restore holds. - No schema or public API changes. Native restart ownership, approval gates, and retry limits retain their existing behavior. - This PR has not been deployed. It does not recover an existing retained sandbox by itself. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The exact backend model identifier and context window were not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f3cd3f4ea8 |
fix(runner): require confirmed exit before remote replacement (#16835)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Remote runs need one runner to own their process identity and listener. > - A health request can fail while that runner continues to work. > - The active monitor treated a failed request as a process exit. > - Recovery could then launch another runner against the occupied listener. > - This pull request retries health reads and requires proof of exit before replacement. > - A brief outage can recover on the same runner without replaying agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16341 adds remote recovery diagnostics. Refs: #16686 retries verification when restoring a saved remote session. This change applies the shared probe policy to active process supervision. **What happened?** The active remote monitor settled its completion promise after a timed-out or rejected health request. The transport treated that result as an exit and started process recovery. An existing runner could still own the listener. Replacement then failed with `runner_ingress_bind_conflict` until the reconnect deadline expired. Missing or changed ownership markers also did not prove that the old process had exited. **Expected behavior** Retry transient read failures on the same runner. Require a matching ownership marker and proof of process exit before replacement. Preserve uncertainty when identity or liveness cannot be verified. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a remote runner and leave its listener alive. 2. Make one process-health request time out or reject. 3. Observe completion and the restart decision. Before this change, the monitor settles while the process is alive, and the restart wrapper permits another launch. **Paperclip version or commit** The defect was reproduced on master at `6e89919631`. The patch is based on current master at `c6a0cf4bce`. ## What Changed - Reuse the bounded read-only recovery probe for active supervision. Retry up to three reads within 30 seconds. - Check the saved process generation when available. Accept only the specific process-not-running receipt as exit proof. - Add an exit-confirmation contract to remote process handles. Require it for restart and shutdown completion. Preserve the cause of supervision errors. - Test transient failures, exhausted retries, conflicting identities, real listening processes, and an authenticated runner with a fake provider. Keep confirmed-exit replacement covered. - Document the recovery policy and coverage limits in the execution contract and maps. ## Verification - Red: the timeout and transport-error regressions failed before the patch because completion settled while the runner was alive. The restart-guard regression also failed because replacement was allowed. - Green: 14 server supervision cases passed, including a real listening process. All 120 shared control-plane tests passed. Focused Runner tests passed for authenticated live-runner fault injection and confirmed-exit replacement. - Review regression: a replacement-health test first failed because its error cause was lost. It passed after preserving the cause and detail. The four affected transport cases and Runner typecheck then passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed for 35 areas and 176 capability IDs. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The sequential local full-suite run was stopped before completion; no local full-suite pass is claimed. Final commit `bcc1b1d339` passed the complete CI matrix: 55 checks passed and two optional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved conversations. The PR has no merge conflicts. - The first real-listener attempt could not bind inside the execution sandbox. The same test passed with local socket access. The first package-test invocation used the root configuration and selected no tests; the package configuration ran all selected tests. - CI attempt 1: nine test jobs were cancelled together at 12:54:59 UTC. Their test steps report cancellation. The build and uninterrupted jobs passed. The interrupted jobs were retried once. That retry exposed one confirmed-exit message assertion failure in the Runner shard; the other jobs passed. The compatibility correction preserves the prior message. The failing case and four recovery cases then passed locally. The complete CI matrix passed after that correction. - No live sandbox restoration, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks - A persistent outage now ends supervision with explicit exit uncertainty. It cannot authorize a competing process. Existing ownership and workspace recovery checks remain required. - Health reads can take up to 30 seconds before reporting an unavailable runner. Retries are read-only and bounded. - Local launchers keep their existing completion contract. No database migration or public API change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3858d2341d |
fix(recovery): default saved-monitor waits and keep task recovery quiet (#16686)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - A task must keep a durable path to its next action. > - A provider can save a task monitor, then fail to yield because it omits internal continuation fields. > - An interrupted provider-pack check can then be reported as permanent artifact incompatibility. > - The task asks its user to certify recovered workspace files, even though this is an operator responsibility. > - This pull request derives the saved monitor continuation, bounds verification retries, and removes that task form. > - Normal recovery stays quiet. Unresolved holds retain inspection and the existing safety checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A yielded completion without `continuation` is rejected even after the provider saves an eligible monitor on the task. Repeated attempts cannot finish. Remote verification also treats timeouts and missing exit status as artifact incompatibility. The task recovery notice exposes raw diagnostics and asks the task user to certify infrastructure files. **Expected behavior** Use current persisted task state to fill routine continuation fields. Retry interrupted verification reads within a fixed bound. Keep normal recovery in the working state. Show a compact notice only when work cannot safely continue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save an eligible monitor on the active task. 2. Call `paperclip_finish` with `reportedWorkDisposition: "yielded"` and omit `continuation`. 3. Return a timed-out remote provider-pack command with empty stderr during recovery. Inspect the resulting task notice. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `aaeff418cf` (master integrated with its current task visibility and saved-source reconstruction rules). Related changes: #15824, #16104, #16451, #16493, #16690. This fix complements saved-result recovery and verified pack reuse. It does not replace their workspace ownership checks. ## What Changed - Allow omitted or null continuation at the provider input boundary. Read current authorized task context and fill a monitor continuation only for the bound run and an eligible saved monitor. Keep accepted results strict. Apply this to Codex, OpenCode, both direct and production-sidecar ACPX paths, and external drivers. Reserve the semantic call identity during the saved-context read and reject cancellation or a changed run/turn. - Bind the shared completion change and continuation helper in a new Copilot v21 source declaration. Preserve v20 history and its decoder support. Qualification stays pending. - Expose the eligible continuation in task context. Completion admission still checks persisted monitor state. No schedule is created or renewed by the default. - Retry read-only provider verification at most twice per command. Hold exhausted reads with a distinct verification-unavailable cause. Reattachment cannot renew the read budget through an unchanged provider-attempt counter. Keep completed verification failures and wrong versions incompatible. - Remove the task file-certification form. Hide the notice only for a matching durable recovery path without an unknown-action replay hold. Keep missed retries, unsafe outcomes, and unresolved file holds visible. - Add production-component stories for automatic recovery, blocked and expired holds, reader access, persisted repair decisions, source reconstruction, queued continuation, and mobile. Preserve master’s guarded saved-source reconstruction choice after confirmed source destruction. Update the execution contract and access maps. ## Verification - Completion, helper, Codex, OpenCode, ACPX, and profile regressions pass. After the sidecar review fix, 271 tests across the production sidecar and three provider suites pass, plus 72 helper/profile tests. The real sidecar MCP bridge tests cover saved-monitor acceptance, no-monitor refusal, cancellation, duplicate call identity, and raw-versus-forwarded semantic receipt hashes. The OpenCode tests also cover eligible-monitor acceptance and refusal without one. - The fresh full native executor suite passes all 743 tests. Four profile, installation-integrity, and ACPX driver suites pass all 168 tests. The earlier CI fingerprint failure required a new immutable source declaration; its follow-up Docker failure required the matching context allowlist entry. Both fixes are verified locally. Targeted server monitor, tool authority, and provider verification suites pass. The probe tests include a real timed-out subprocess, an unrelated responsive timer, transport errors, and completed integrity rejections. - All 90 tests in the merged task notice, reconstruction choice, recovery display, and lineage suites pass. They cover reader access, live/missed/mismatched recovery, unknown outcomes, saved messages, retry refusal, and removal of the file form. Both review findings have failing-baseline/passing-treatment regressions: identical polling across retry expiry, and a failed refresh after cached running activity. - Browser walkthrough passed for automatic recovery, unresolved details, a 390px mobile story, and the merged saved-source reconstruction and queued states. The reconstruction control starts disabled and normal automatic recovery shows only Working. The stories use production components and fixture API data. They do not prove live cloud recovery. - Token gates, map checks, and Storybook catalog generation pass. The exact Docker context integrity command passes locally after adding the new build declaration to its allowlist. - Workspace typecheck and build pass on the final source, including the versioned identity update. The final server and UI guards pass their focused tests, typechecks, builds, and token gates. The final standalone Storybook builds. The saved-monitor default retains master’s stricter child-task visibility filter. Re-review caught an additional production-sidecar validator before forwarding; the fix now defaults at that boundary and has passing regression controls. After preserving master’s new reconstruction capability, 68 targeted reconstruction, tool-authority, and provider-verification server tests pass. The current-master integration at `2a80050a0d` has a fresh 5/5 review with zero unresolved threads. Its complete CI matrix, including Runner tests, is the merge acceptance record. - On the final master integration, local typecheck, build, and all 90 recovery UI tests pass. A concurrent runner run hit five 5-second sidecar startup timeouts; an isolated sidecar run passed 86 tests and timed out in the unrelated unsupported-bootstrap case. Those local deadline failures remain recorded; the canonical CI Runner lanes use their normal deadlines and pass. The unsharded local full-suite attempt did not complete. It spanned source edits; the fresh native executor run above passes. An unrelated workspace fixture timed out once and then failed to reserve 32 contiguous ports on this host. Its unchanged-base control and CI server suite pass. Full-suite acceptance uses the fresh latest-head CI matrix; this PR does not claim a passing unsharded local run. ## Risks The default applies only to an eligible persisted monitor. An explicit invalid continuation still fails validation. The added read occurs only when a yielded report omits its continuation. Admission rechecks current state after that read. An interrupted verification command can add one extra 30-second probe. Completed rejections stay closed. These probes do not change the pack, launch provider work, or replay external tools. Two inconclusive reads hold the original run. They do not schedule another reattachment with an unchanged provider-attempt counter. This PR’s pending Copilot v21 declaration binds the changed shared contract, resolver, direct driver, and production sidecar sources. The previous v20 declaration is immutable and remains decodable, but launch requires the new exact identity. Qualification remains pending. Task users lose the file-certification form. Board-authorized source-only repair remains available through the resolution API with the original evidence and stop-receipt requirements. This branch does not deploy or recover historical held runs. > This is a bug fix and UI polish within existing recovery behavior. ROADMAP.md was checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, xhigh reasoning, with tool use and code execution. The host does not expose the context-window limit. ## 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 (changed-area suites; the full local run limitation is recorded 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
db11d899cf |
fix(native): recover remote sessions while preserving warm runs (#16451)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native agents keep remote processes and conversation history across warm turns. > - A completed turn can leave handoff authority only in controller memory. > - Losing that controller can block a follow-up even while its sandbox survives. > - This pull request verifies durable ownership and reconnects the exact prior process before handing it to the next run. > - Healthy follow-ups stay warm. Recovery preserves saved work without replaying a completed turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A remote warm turn can finish without suspended backup authority. A replacement controller rejects that prior owner even when its exact process and completed checkpoint remain. A single unavailable identity probe can also stop an otherwise valid reattachment. **Expected behavior** Keep healthy follow-ups warm. Recover a completed session after proving that its controller stopped and that the successor holds current authority. Reuse compatible processes; otherwise save and resume the conversation. Retry unavailable identity reads within one shared deadline. **Steps to reproduce** Use `doc/testing-native-remote-continuity.md`. Its Linux cases execute real turns through PostgreSQL, TLS ingress, and the Rust runner. They kill a separate controller process, recover old checkpoint metadata, and change process configuration. The provider is deterministic. Related: #16432 and #16441 fix live warm-owner handoffs. #16341 adds recovery diagnostics. #14695 covers provider process retention. ## What Changed - Preserve warm process reuse between healthy remote turns. - Verify a committed prior result, stopped controller, matching checkpoint and sandbox, and current task/coordinator ownership before recovering an orphaned warm session. - Reconnect through the prior run route, then use the existing authenticated run attachment to change authority. - Persist a process-configuration digest. Close and save recovered sessions when old or changed configuration cannot support reuse. - Retry unavailable state, marker, and process reads within one 30-second deadline. Keep signals and definitive identity failures single-attempt. - Record closed recovery diagnostics, including unreadable or malformed saved state. - Retire the recovery-only ownership check after verified attachment, so later warm turns use their current authority. - Add real-process Linux regressions and refusal controls. - Expose the existing source-only file-recovery form for retained native holds, with the same board authority, evidence, and exact stop-receipt requirements as legacy holds. Recording recovered files does not change task status or replay a run. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed; the server check was repeated for the third-turn fix. - `pnpm build` passed after the final UI change. The UI typecheck, token gates, and map checks also pass. - Four Linux continuity cases passed: warm reuse, controller loss, legacy checkpoint metadata, and changed configuration. Each creates one conversation and starts exactly three turns, including a healthy follow-up after recovery. The fixture uses expired prior leases; the third turn keeps the runner and provider processes. - Greptile caught the retained recovery gate; the third-turn regression now covers it. An initial test omitted the heartbeat’s saved input and left a test process after failure; the fixture was corrected and its disposable container reset before the passing run. - The current focused executor/restart group passes all 749 tests, including the original failure classifications. - Native file-recovery and UI tests pass (52 tests), including blocked tasks and both native and legacy holds. - After merging current master and retaining its equivalent CI expression check, the CI policy tests pass (15 tests) and all four three-turn Linux continuity cases pass again on `dec418ae55ff21b4fb067132613658cce445f181`. - `pnpm test:run` completed its general server group with 20,572 passes, 103 skips, and three failures: the skill-audit child process and two HTTP test timeouts. The same three suites then passed in isolation (89 tests) without code changes. That local command stopped before later groups; the complete final-head CI, including general, serialized, Runner, build, and browser gates, is green. - Greptile reviewed the combined head `dec418ae55ff21b4fb067132613658cce445f181` at 5/5 with no actionable findings; both earlier findings are resolved. All final-head CI gates and the security scan passed. Staging deployment and retained-incident disposition remain deployment acceptance work. ## Risks - Recovery requires exact durable evidence. Live conflicting controllers, replacement sandboxes, Stop/pause, and uncertain effects must remain blocked. - After controller loss, tool-contract or process-configuration changes can restart the provider. Normal healthy follow-ups retain their processes. - The new idle-recovery path has Linux fake-provider evidence. Live Codex/OpenCode and retained quarantined-state recovery still need staging qualification. - No database schema, telemetry, or runner protocol changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The session does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. ## 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 (targeted checks and isolated reruns; full-run limitation recorded 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 on `dec418ae55ff21b4fb067132613658cce445f181` - [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> |
||
|
|
cafa25029c |
fix(native-runtime): recover unclaimed remote startup (#16349)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runtime preserves task execution across server restarts. > - Remote workspace preparation can finish before the executor claims its first provider attempt. > - The recovery classifier required a provider checkpoint even when the durable coordinator proved that execution had never started. > - A deployment during this interval therefore left safe startup work on a permanent recovery hold. > - This pull request admits that narrow startup state to the existing same-run bootstrap path. Existing execution and ownership checks remain in force. > - The original preparation yields when recovery owns the coordinator. It cannot fail or clean up the recovered run. > - Tasks can continue after this interruption without an operator retry or a duplicate provider turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server deployment interrupted a prepared remote workspace before the native executor's first claim. The coordinator had attempt zero, controller generation zero, and no owner, process, provider event, or checkpoint. Restart classification returned `ambiguous_remote_recovery_evidence` and blocked the task. **Expected behavior** The server should recognize this durable never-claimed state and continue the original run through normal execution admission. A prior claim, uncertain ownership, or contradictory execution evidence must retain the recovery hold. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Prepare a remote workspace for a native run. 2. Stop the controller before the executor commits its first claim. 3. Restart the controller and classify the running native task. 4. Observe that the old classifier blocks it because no provider checkpoint exists. Related: #16341 preserves remote recovery failure reasons. #16344 strengthens remote restart qualification. Neither changes admission for an untouched remote startup. ## What Changed - Require a server-owned fencing version written only with fresh native identities. Older unmarked preparations stay held during rolling upgrades; caller profile data cannot add that marker to an existing run. - Leave the current server's active preparation with its existing execution. - Yield through the controller-detachment path when a different execution owns the coordinator lease. Lease expiry does not grant takeover authority. - Preserve run-scoped gateway tokens during detachment so stale preparation cannot revoke the recovered worker's tools. - Admit a valid prepared remote workspace only when the locked coordinator proves attempt and controller generation zero, no owner, and no prior session or execution evidence. - Check launch receipts and provider source events before granting bootstrap recovery. - Keep the original run and session. Preserve atomic recovery claims, executor durable-state checks, and normal admission gates. - Add real PostgreSQL regression tests for competing controllers and seven contradictory evidence cases. - Update recovery documentation, the run-log reason, and both capability maps. ## Verification - The competing-controller regressions failed before the ownership fix and pass for both live and expired foreign leases. - On the final revision, 77 runtime-selection, restart recovery, real PostgreSQL, and heartbeat boundary tests pass with no skips, including all local runner process fixtures. The full native executor file passes all 698 tests. - Another 91 live-run route tests pass locally. An earlier CI timeout in that unrelated file passed on retry; the complete final-head CI passed without that failure. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check`: passed locally. The map check verifies structure only. - Local `pnpm test:run` did not finish: an early attempt had build-related collection failures, and later full-suite execution was stopped after complete CI passed. Targeted suites passed after build preparation. This is not a local full-suite pass. - The complete [PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38669996667) passed on `2baffb3652bfeb4705a30ca3706fbda6c3d72aa4`, including all test shards, build/typecheck, runner verification, and browser E2E. All 55 applicable review/security/CI checks succeeded; two Storybook checks were skipped. - [Greptile Apex](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16349#issuecomment-6180848957): 5/5 on the same final head, with no unresolved findings. - No live remote provider restart is claimed by the database regression. ## Risks - A bare executor can no longer take a foreign coordinator lease after expiry. A verified recovery claim must transfer authority first. - Existing preparations without the server-owned fencing marker retain their recovery hold during rolling upgrades. - Incorrect admission could duplicate provider work. This path requires a positive durable never-claimed receipt, rejects contradictory launch evidence, and keeps the executor's existing durable-root verification. - Previously claimed or incomplete remote recovery evidence remains blocked. This change does not clear historical terminal holds. - No schema, API, dependency, or UI changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6fae6f2cb8 |
fix(wake-queue): preserve pending work when a queued run is stopped (#16357)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The wake queue releases task locks and can promote saved follow-up work when a run ends. > - An operator can stop a queued run before dispatch selects its runtime. > - The legacy release path can promote the old follow-up after that Stop. > - For an obsolete routine cycle, this can conflict with the current active cycle after cancellation has already committed. > - This pull request preserves the deferred input without promoting it at that release boundary. > - The benefit is that a queued Stop stays stopped and does not return an error from starting an obsolete follow-up. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #14300 and Refs #16339 describe other pre-dispatch cancellation paths. Related PR #16238 changes former-owner wake selection. This change addresses expected operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection, without changing those contracts. **What happened?** Stopping an unstarted legacy run committed its cancellation, then tried to promote a deferred wake. When another cycle of the same routine was already active, the issue lock update failed against `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The cancel request returned HTTP 500 even though the run was cancelled. Without a competing cycle, the Stop launched the old follow-up. **What did you expect to happen?** Release the stopped run's own locks and preserve deferred input for a later eligible instruction. Do not start the old queue as a side effect of Stop. **Steps to reproduce** Create two cycles of the same routine. Keep the current cycle active. Give the old cycle an unstarted legacy run with a verified bootstrap record and a deferred wake. Cancel that run as a board operator, then release its issue execution. The added database regression reproduces the failed lock update before the fix. **Paperclip version / commit** Reproduced on parent commit `976cdc77ed564dc3e014621505890b647e554a7f`. **Deployment mode** A remote runtime exposed the symptom. The regression uses embedded PostgreSQL and the real wake-queue adapter. ## What Changed - Recognize an expected operator Stop only when the legacy run has no runtime-selection time, start time, process-start time, or process identity. - Use the existing release boundary to preserve deferred input without promoting it. - Add database regressions for ordinary Stop, a competing routine cycle, repeated release, provider cancellation, runtime selection, and dispatched-run reconciliation. - Document the behavior and update both recovery maps. ## Verification - Before the fix, both queued Stop cases failed. The competing-cycle case raised `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The three control cases passed. - `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 7 files and 214 tests passed, including all five new database cases. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 10 map-script tests passed locally. The complete CI suite is green on `8e204eef87f1a593df5c183abef764e4b9eb5fd1`. The remaining serial local full-suite run was stopped once that unchanged-head CI verification passed; a local full-suite pass is not claimed. Apex review passed at 5/5 on the same head with no review threads. ## Risks - The change is limited to recorded operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection. Selected runtimes, dispatched work, provider cancellation, and native stop acknowledgement keep their existing paths. - Deferred work is retained. A later eligible instruction must still use normal admission and all current gates. - No schema migration or new authority is required. This regression is not proof of a live provider stop. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
|
976cdc77ed |
fix(recovery): expose settled holds and their preserved decisions (#16169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery preserves work when execution or tool outcomes are uncertain. > - Automatic recovery can settle its record while keeping replay blocked. > - The recovery-actions API omitted those records unless they held workspace files. > - Operators and agent tools could therefore see an empty recovery history for a task that still had an execution hold. > - This pull request lists those holds and shows their matching decision in the existing stopped-run notice. > - Existing stop verification, continuation, and file repair gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A cancelled or failed task can retain a settled recovery record with `automaticRecovery.replay: blocked`. The task remains held, but the recovery-actions API returns no action. The board notice also lacks that record's decision. **Expected behavior** List settled execution holds that still block replay. Let an authorized board user inspect the current action and run in Recovery details. Preserve the existing guarded continuation and required-file repair paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Stop a run whose outcome requires inspection. 2. Let automatic recovery settle its record with replay blocked. 3. Read the task's recovery actions and open its stopped-run notice. 4. Before this change, the action list is empty unless workspace recovery is required. **Paperclip version or commit** This PR includes current master through `66424362a85`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated and local deployments with persisted execution recovery holds. The original API correction and route regression are by Tao Xie (@TaoXieSZ). This update preserves those commits and adds the board inspection path, current documentation, and regression coverage. Related: #14840 describes controller lease loss. This change exposes recovery records; it does not change controller lease renewal. ## What Changed - Include settled execution reconciliation holds with replay blocked in the company-scoped recovery-actions response. - Read the matching action from the existing stopped-run notice. Show its decision under Recovery details, including when active recovery is empty. - Reject mismatched historical records in the notice. Bind history to the current action/run and refresh visible decisions every five seconds. Keep history read errors visible beside the current guidance. - Preserve existing run inspection, new-message continuation, and required-file repair controls. No new reconciliation form is added. - Update the execution documentation and both recovery capability maps. ## Verification - Recovery route suite with real embedded PostgreSQL: 80 passed, none skipped. - Notice and retry-client suites: 36 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. This checks structure only. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was started. It is not yet a full local pass. Initial database tests were affected by missing packaged macOS library aliases; the aliases were restored in this worktree's dependencies, and the complete recovery route suite then passed. - All CI checks passed on `09e4461e4d3a0960a4dc8bc270a2a10c628bf524`, including the full test matrix, typecheck, build and browser checks. Optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - Apex: 5/5 on the same head. Both review threads are resolved; the reviewer confirmed the existing guarded continuation design. ## Risks - The API response now includes settled records that still block replay. Consumers must distinguish a settled record from permission to continue. - Recovery history is supplemental. A failed history read keeps the current blocker and guidance visible. - The UI binds the decision to both the current action and run. It does not certify tool outcomes or grant execution authority. - No schema, dependency, telemetry, or runtime admission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, assisted with the board inspection and verification follow-up. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. The original API work is retained from Tao Xie's contribution. ## 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 (targeted suites; full-suite limits 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: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
adb69e8f09 |
feat: default new Codex agents to Paperclip Runner on Linux and macOS (#15683)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for agent companies. > - People choose a harness when creating an agent. > - The server should resolve that harness to a qualified runner. > - Codex is the first harness in the staged default rollout. > - Saved agents must retain their execution choices. > - New Codex agents therefore use Paperclip Runner on qualified macOS/Linux targets, with an explicit Legacy override. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16028, #15555, #15673, #15422, #15631, #15926, #15932, #16149. The runtime/install prerequisite and release repair are merged. This slice owns Codex creation, setup, configuration and preservation. Other harness defaults remain unchanged. It adds no database migration; incoming master migrations, required maps and regression coverage are retained. ## What Changed - Resolve `runner: auto | paperclip | legacy` at the common creation boundary across onboarding, API/CLI, hires, built-ins, plugins and imports. Freeze pending hires and export resolved execution choices. - Preserve existing runners on upgrades, unrelated edits and import updates, including compatible accounts, workspace settings, Codex effort and intentional clears. - Use the underlying harness picker and branding; put the runner override in Advanced. Use the shared dropdown and update production-component stories and creation contracts. - Support qualified Apple Silicon, Intel Mac, Linux x64 and Linux ARM64. Linux requires GNU libc 2.39+. Disabled, external, unsupported and unqualified combinations retain their applicable Legacy execution. - Test the selected runtime/account/model/environment. Ordinary Connect probes eligible immutable managed targets and refreshes scoped discovery. Creation/discovery do not provision. Auth, dependency, incompatible-setting and cleanup failures remain actionable without changing runners. - Keep setup probes read-only, preserve local/SSH isolation and resolve packaged assets before staging credentials. Bound cleanup reads by the remaining absolute deadline; physically close every owned ingress socket before endpoint release. Unconfirmed cleanup retains recovery state. - Preserve validated completed-onboarding callbacks through startup recovery. First file-producing work belongs to the child task and uses the existing dependency/block handoff and task-scoped registration. - Reuse existing E2E fixtures, artifact checks, reporting and controls. Keep Docker/Cargo/native compilation remote. Paperclip tarballs contain no Codex payloads; official optional npm platform dependencies remain. ## Verification Current tested head: `1c03a8815672d82c264a9b08d4ea1984e8fae107`. **Merge-ready: required CI, fresh review, package qualification, Mac core acceptance and Test task/follow-up acceptance pass.** The existing attachment and native-continuity oracles independently verify both Test downloads, run attribution and unchanged native/provider/workspace identities. The maintainer authorized a code-owner-review exception for this PR only. The first Test setup failure and normal Board completion-review friction are retained below. Actual post-merge packages and private Cloud distribution remain separate qualification gates. - [Current CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38564241625): all 48 ordinary jobs and required verify/E2E pass. Attempt 1 retained six simultaneous host-shutdown cancellations. One failed-only retry passes those six lanes and two aggregates, preserving 40 successes. Actual integration checkout `53104c1` combines this head with master `c80`; it is not relabeled as the branch tree. Fresh exact-head Greptile 5/5, 30 resolved threads, no actionable findings. - [Exact-source package qualification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38565287239): nine applicable jobs pass, nine conditional jobs skip. Four remote native producers; Linux x64 clean install; Intel Mac, Apple Silicon and Linux ARM64 native startup/physical cleanup controls. All 18 tarballs/four daemon source/hash/manifest bindings and 343 migrations through 0344 verify. No Codex payload is packed. These hosted tarballs are not a published npm canary. - Normal Apple Silicon installation and credential-free native startup/cleanup pass using the packaged daemon, with no source build or provider turn. Fresh installed DB initialization passes. Upgrade 651a→1c03 preserves all three complete execution configs, accounts, ten recorded run profiles, paused budgets, active incidents, cost summaries and two historical unpriced events. Historical recovery state is retained. - Cleanup regressions: four delayed-read baseline failures become 15 passing deadline/authority controls. No-acknowledgement and prior-error socket ownership regressions become 12 passing controls. Direct runtime/server types, maps: 35 areas / 176 IDs, diff checks and independent reviews pass. Permission/auth/reconnect policy and the 10-second setup budget remain intact. - Existing source coverage includes creation/selection/imports, pending approvals, recovery, account/lifecycle handling, mounted forms, dropdowns and E2E support. Full typechecks/tests/build/token and applicable Storybook checks pass in the recorded current CI; no duplicate suite or weakened grader. - Literal 9546 live Mac proof: ordinary Auto Codex onboarding, useful document, real completed-child callback/reply, seven successful native runs, manual follow-up and independently downloaded1,101-byte child file. Existing Legacy title edit/reload preserves execution; two real Legacy runs produce independently checked15/34-byte files. These remain historical source records. - Current literal 1c03 Mac core acceptance passes independent checks: ordinary Auto native Codex onboarding without runner override; only timeout 180 seconds/concurrency 1 saved; six successful native runs and six serialized turns (maximum overlap 1); both same-task continuity checks and five mechanical callback checks; actual rendered parent reply and exact child downloads. The useful handoff advances from revision 1 to 2. Both files are 48 bytes, SHA-256 `8b742bd4e8123a7c078f0a8d9f3449fbfa8a320d7d90be641a2818db3c53d92c` and `f42db9774fa06e804ab7d596fc8b922a2b638921c418b87d0111151d290a6afe`; exactly one byte changes and old history remains. The agent is paused with zero active runs/errors. Both artifact work products have `isPrimary=false`, and descriptive titles fail a stricter title-helper assumption; these retained results are scoped editorial follow-up, not new merge gates. Six source-bound screenshots are uploaded and verified in the private primary QA report. - [Literal 9546 managed proof](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-38485488621-1/index.html): original 19 assertions and completed judge pass, four native turns, child-bound240-byte file and session/workspace continuity. Checkout reports a verified generated target-lock mutation; full final porcelain was not retained. Signed execution-image identity remains separate from Core source. - Actual 651a Test deployment succeeds on one owned/pinned target. One ordinary Auto API-key Connect then fails native cleanup before hire. Controller turn/drain/suspend completion and service-recorded environment cleanup are observed; they do not certify physical deletion or native authority retirement. Failure/recovery/unknown holds are retained. No Legacy switch or unchanged paid retry. The two source repairs above require actual treatment. - [Current immutable Core preview](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38570365725) and matching DB/shared artifacts pass. One owned, pinned Test target serves exact `1c03`; identical migration history correctly skips the migrator. Ordinary Auto Codex Connect succeeds and hires native; saved native selection and QA bounds survive reload. The initial child preparation attempt fails before provider work, with actual stdout identifying `renewal_deadline`; its trigger remains unknown and the failure is retained. Normal Board **Try again** and **Resume** recover the child to Done, producing a browser-verified 44-byte file, SHA-256 `0a8458b1efcc2d7a0d815689458c4caab039a46c7c7a3e5805de6bc8b1a96ecc`. The actual parent callback reports the completed child document/file. The existing validator requires a parent-owned attachment, so recovery enters normal Review; after byte checking, normal **Approve completion** reaches parent Done. No forced status or duplicate parent file is used. The validator is unchanged from integrated and current master. Autonomous initial callback-to-Done is not proven. The same-child follow-up completes document revision 2 and publishes a second independently downloaded 44-byte file, SHA-256 `22022257300fae762784632d08d3bbe0bab61e2ce81f91864a14dcd7aa464591`; only the revision digit changes. The unchanged existing native-continuity and attachment oracles pass. All ten recorded runs are terminal: nine native successes and the retained pre-provider setup failure. The QA agent is paused with zero active runs. The pre-existing parent evidence scope mismatch is a separate follow-up, with ordinary completion review exercised rather than a forced status or relaxed validation. This unsigned Core preview remains distinct from post-merge private Cloud composition. ## Risks - Saved agents are not migrated. Explicit runner changes use normal configuration/session rules; historical runs retain their recorded execution. - Native readiness depends on verified assets and server-owned target qualification. A Legacy probe, HTTP200 or successful account save cannot prove native readiness. - Recovery exceptions remain restricted to validated completed-onboarding reports; process-loss, ownership and terminal-state safeguards remain active. Unexecuted live journeys stay open. - Linux ARM paid tasks, Windows, Alpine and 32-bit ARM remain deferred. Cold Cargo cache misses are recorded; no warm-cache speedup is claimed. - Historical invoices/physical cleanup remain unconfirmed and held. After merge, exact published npm canary, signed standard image/migrator, private composition and serving/live acceptance still require qualification. Production deployment/default promotion is not authorized. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tools, code execution and parallel agents. Exact serving snapshot 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 available 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 linked public issues or PRs above - [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 the stated focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the current candidate - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings on the current candidate - [x] I will address all reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5ea3f905cf |
fix: preserve workspace finalization during watchdog recovery (#16247)
Keep task completion separate from runtime and workspace settlement. Permit verified board file-only repair of successful legacy retained-source runs without authorizing replay. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5a6d0d08a7 |
fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action. > - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action is resolved. > - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified file recovery. > - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with a chat retry instruction. > - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file repair instruction. > - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current task status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat binding can hide the required file repair instruction. **Expected behavior** An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must not replace file repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker and a resolved recovery action. 2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection. 3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified recovery. Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing file repair API. ## What Changed - Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file verification confirmation. - Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery. - Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording. - Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding. - Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and chat-connected file holds. - Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog entries. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved, together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests. - Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262 authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production verification obligations remain intact. - Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains all four file-recovery story IDs. - Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54 successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI. Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions have not been executed locally. - Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery. Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt. ## Risks - The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files itself or prove external action outcomes. - A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the existing server route. - No database migration or automatic task retry is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is not exposed by this 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> |
||
|
|
0b0e53029f |
fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824)
## Thinking Path - Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback and result commitment. - A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its tar/Git children stopped. - Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown. - New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment. - The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented administrator API after independent platform verification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task; that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details. **Expected behavior** Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently verified operator assistance through the administrator API. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior controller. 2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits. 3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result. 4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment, recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider turn. Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup. This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner prevents commitment. ## What Changed - Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity on new physical copyback owners. - Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose, configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and valid expiry. - Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced. Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the existing dedicated advisory lock. - Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership, approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations. - Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when recovery resolves. - Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result, authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded tasks cannot start copyback. - Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback fence. - Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic, queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs. Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog. ## Verification - Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the database takeover regression failed against the original ownership guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass after the changes. - Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown evidence and changed ownership remain fenced. - Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route, recovery-card and reduced-UI tests. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build. - Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider acceptance. - A companion harness change implements the actual provider check, signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed, 92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform verification. - The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224 stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review. - Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and 68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook build also pass. - Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain untouched and no workspace operation starts. - No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack deployment identity and still require independent operator proof. ## Risks Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy. No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review; neither branch is deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant 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> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
83e13db8fa |
fix(inbox): keep automatic recovery cleanup out of personal participation (#16063)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The personal inbox uses issue activity to identify a person's participation. > - Issue reads can cancel stale recovery actions and record that cleanup as the reader's action. > - This adds unrelated tasks to the inbox and refreshes their activity timestamps. > - A workspace owner hold can also alternate between creation and cancellation after a task finishes. > - This pull request corrects cleanup attribution, excludes historical read cleanup, and retains one exact owner hold. > - Agents can read authorized issue activity to diagnose the same problem themselves. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15742 excludes logs by the execution-recovery actor from activity timestamps. This PR covers reader-attributed stale recovery cleanup, personal inbox participation, exact workspace owner holds, and sandbox issue activity access. I searched open issues and PRs for recovery inbox and activity bridge fixes. I found no duplicate for this defect. **What happened?** Loading issue lists cancels stale recovery actions under the reader's identity. The personal inbox treats those rows as user participation. One completed issue had hundreds of such rows and no edits or comments by the affected reader. A retained native workspace owner repeatedly creates a verification action that read projections then cancel. Sandbox agents cannot inspect the issue activity because the reverse bridge rejects the route. **Expected behavior** Automatic cleanup belongs to the system and does not add an issue to a reader's inbox. Historical cleanup rows remain auditable but do not count as participation or recent activity. An unresolved physical workspace owner keeps one stable verification action. Agents can inspect activity only for issues their identity may read. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish a task whose native run retains an unverifiable workspace owner receipt. 2. Repeat workspace recovery checks and GET requests for issue detail, compact lists, and recovery actions. 3. Observe new recovery action IDs and reader-attributed cancellations in the activity history. 4. Query the personal inbox for that reader and observe the unrelated task. 5. From a sandbox agent, request GET /api/issues/:id/activity and observe Route not allowed. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed at |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |