mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
d9bcf4dfe8e4f6c46bb0c3cd2ff0e56bb73e0cfe
10
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
7c58ea07b2 |
fix(issues): guard prepared task promotion by status version (#16893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Integrations can prepare a backlog task before its assigned agent starts. > - A person can change its status or assignment during preparation. > - An unconditional promotion can replace that newer decision. > - Safe promotion needs a saved revision that includes every assignment path. > - This pull request checks that revision under the task row lock and derives policy cleanup from the locked row. > - The benefit is safe initialization recovery with the existing company, task, and run authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Prerequisite #16896 has merged. This PR now targets master and contains only the conditional promotion API. The prerequisite fixed the confirmed baseline first-upload browser regression. **What happened?** A client that saves a task's initial documents and then sends an unconditional status update can override a concurrent status or assignment decision. The update validator previously dropped an expected version, so clients could not make this promotion conditional. Some direct assignment and release paths also did not advance the revision. **Expected behavior** A prepared task moves from backlog to todo only if its original status and assignment revision still matches. A stale request returns 409 before a task mutation, audit publication, or wake. Policy cleanup preserves unrelated saved settings. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a backlog task and save its statusVersion before preparing it. 2. Release its assignment, or change an assignee and then restore that assignee. 3. Send `{ "status": "todo", "expectedStatusVersion": <original revision> }` to its PATCH endpoint. 4. The stale promotion must return 409. A matching revision on an unchanged backlog task must succeed. Duplicate and related PR searches found no existing prepared-task promotion fix. ## What Changed - Accept an optional nonnegative expectedStatusVersion for exactly a status-only backlog-to-todo promotion. Reject extra public fields before parsing can discard them. - Check the current revision and backlog state under the issue row lock. Reject stale requests before checkout adoption or execution-control effects. - Add SQL migration 0358 to advance the revision for both assignee fields at the database boundary. Release, administrative release, direct writes, and assignment round trips now invalidate an old version. - Derive guarded policy cleanup from the locked row. Preserve review limits and protected authorization when removing a monitor. Reject derived ownership changes or review decisions. - Add schema, real HTTP/PostgreSQL, concurrency, migration replay, and policy regression coverage. Update the response type, OpenAPI, developer docs, and access map. ## Verification - Red before the initial fix: stale requests returned 200 instead of 409, validation removed the expected version, and a stale active task could adopt a checkout. - Review found two further defects. Four new release/direct-assignment tests showed unchanged revisions. The real HTTP/service test returned 422 for a valid two-field promotion after monitor cleanup. Helper tests also proved that cleanup lost valid review limits and protected authorization. All now pass after focused repairs. - Green: 124 route and policy tests, including 7 real Express/PostgreSQL cases, 37 existing route tests, and 80 policy/helper tests. The real row-lock race preserves a policy edit committed while promotion waits. - Green: all 23 database client tests, plus 9 focused assignment and replay checks. Historical migration 0227 receipt recovery cannot remove the new assignment trigger. Reapplying migration 0358 leaves existing rows unchanged and installs one trigger. Combined status/assignment writes increment once; unchanged assignees do not increment. - Earlier verification passed all 218 schema/route/service cases and the generated OpenAPI capability test. Rebased focused regressions passed all 27 selected cases. Final server TypeScript passed after all repairs; shared TypeScript passed. Migration safety/numbering, five-snapshot retention, map validation, and diff checks pass. - The baseline browser attachment case failed twice on the earlier head. Separate #16896 proved the lost-composer cause, passed 335 component tests and the real first-upload journey, and has green CI with a 5/5 review. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - Some early local checks were blocked by missing or stale sibling dependency artifacts. This worktree now has its own frozen offline install and standard SDK prerequisites. The failures and successful reruns remain in the task evidence. - Before rebasing, head `3304bb00de6ad6a248b5e046c008072ad20ac8f5` passed all CI (55 successful checks and one neutral), Greptile 5/5, and a secondary source review at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The secondary reviewer did not execute project tests, inspect CI, or exercise a live agent journey. Earlier incomplete and must-fix assessments remain visible; both established findings are repaired above. - After #16896 merged, all five CAS commits were rebased onto master `87d9386ae637c652d1fed09d2046be1bcaeb413b`. Migration 0358 was regenerated because master added another 0357. Range comparison shows no other change to the CAS patches; inherited UI commits are absent. The original head is preserved locally. - Rebased head `1c0264e51a280b1dbf597725a7e42e72d4be1b1b` passes all 124 route/policy tests, 9 selected assignment/promotion tests, and all 24 database client/snapshot-drift tests. Database build, migration checks, generated snapshot linkage, five-snapshot retention (0354–0358), maps, and diff checks pass. Fresh-head CI and review are pending. No deployment or live agent journey was performed for this API. ## Risks - The guard supports prepared backlog promotion only. Other statuses or mixed public mutation fields return 422. A stale revision or non-backlog row returns 409. - Preserve the original version from a server that already advertises this guard before initialization. Older versions did not track every assignment path. Reconcile older or uncertain initialization instead of fetching a new revision and blindly retrying. - Migration 0358 is SQL-only and idempotent. It adds no table, column, or task backfill. Its separate trigger survives historical status-migration replay. - Existing authorization and unguarded updates remain in place. Guarded promotion does not provide a general lifecycle or review-stage control API. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression verification. ## 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
|
c145475cae |
fix: admit documented sandbox task context routes (#16892)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip agents use task context to complete assigned work. > - Sandboxed agents reach the controller through a bounded callback bridge. > - The bridge rejects several documented context routes before controller authorization runs. > - An authorized agent cannot read a task screenshot or referenced skill file, or inspect a missed monitor wake. > - This pull request admits only the exact context routes and supported methods. > - The controller continues to enforce company, resource, task and monitor authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Both callback transports return `Route not allowed` for task asset content, company skill detail and files, wake diagnostics, and the monitor check-now action. These operations already exist in the controller. **Expected behavior** A sandboxed agent can use these documented operations when the controller authorizes its request. Other methods, deeper paths, skill mutations, and recovery resolution remain restricted. **Steps to reproduce** Use a sandbox callback to read an asset URL from a task description, read a company skill's referenced file, or inspect a task's wake diagnostics. The baseline bridge rejects each request. The new regression matrix runs all five operations against both transport allowlists. Related: #16772 documents refused callback routes. This PR fixes the context routes listed above; it does not add company-wide activity or labels access. ## What Changed - Admit asset content, skill detail/files, and wake diagnostic reads. - Admit the existing monitor check-now action with controller authorization. - Add a focused allow/deny matrix for both transports. - Update the operational API reference and access maps. ## Verification - With the pre-fix bridge rules, all 10 allowed-request cases fail with `Route not allowed` across the two transports; all 24 deny controls still pass. - With the fix restored, all 34 route cases pass. The matrix plus existing callback suite passes 119 tests across two files. - Local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - The access-map checker, capability contract generation check, and capability inventory check pass. - Full repository CI passes on `97f9f06b2c`: typecheck/release registry, all test shards, build, Docker context, canary dry run, and aggregate verify. - The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after 24 minutes once full CI passed; it is not claimed as a completed local pass. - Greptile is 5/5 on the current head with no inline findings. Independent source review checked asset, skill, wake-diagnostic, and monitor controller authorization and found no actionable issues. - The secondary Paperclip automated review is neutral/incomplete. Independent review covered its missing controller checks; the real Vitest cases and full CI provide execution evidence. ## Risks This widens transport admission for five existing operations. It does not change controller authorization. Asset reads still check company/task visibility; skill reads keep source policy; monitor checks keep ownership and management permission. No schema or UI change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. The work used failing-before and passing-after 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 - [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
|
b928c6698f |
fix(heartbeat): explain deferred monitor dispatch (#16891)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - One-shot task monitors request future work through the normal heartbeat queue. > - Queue admission can hold execution until recovery or ownership is reconciled. > - The scheduler retained those monitor schedules but recorded no monitor diagnostic. > - Agents could repeatedly reschedule the same blocked check without seeing why it did not run. > - This pull request records safe deferral and failure activity while retaining all execution gates. > - Agents and operators can inspect the actual blocker and use its existing recovery path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15556 handles transient monitor client errors. #14590 handles parked monitor wakes. This change records the diagnosis when queue admission defers or fails; it does not change their admission or monitor consumption policies. **What happened?** A due monitor on a task with an unresolved execution-recovery hold was claimed, passed to queue admission, and released without monitor activity. The saved monitor continued to look scheduled. Unexpected dispatch errors had the same audit gap. Repeated rearming could not clear the recovery hold. **Expected behavior** Keep the monitor and the recovery hold. Record the reason that prevented its wake. Do not execute uncertain work or consume an attempt. Limit repeated identical diagnostics. If audit storage fails, release the claim so a later tick can retry. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a due monitor on an agent-owned task in progress. 2. Add an active recovery action for an interrupted legacy execution. 3. Run the monitor scheduler twice. No provider may start while the hold remains. 4. Before this fix, neither attempt writes monitor deferral activity. 5. Resolve the hold through its existing recovery path. The saved monitor can then request one wake. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
985d3b12b6 |
fix(runner): explain rejected task monitor arguments (#16868)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use task monitors to resume work after a future check. > - The runner rejects monitor arguments that fail the tool schema. > - It returned a generic error with no field or repair guidance. > - An agent could treat a repairable call as a scheduling outage and block its task. > - This pull request adds safe repair guidance and shows the nested request shape. > - Agents can correct the call and confirm a saved schedule before they yield. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15446, #16686. **What happened?** A rejected native `set_task_monitor` call returned `invalid_tool_call` with only “Paperclip rejected this semantic tool call.” The agent could not identify the invalid field. A retry could fail again and leave unfinished work without a scheduled wake. **Expected behavior** Reject invalid arguments before any mutation. Give the provider bounded schema locations and clear repair guidance. A corrected call must save a monitor and allow one wake without duplicate effects. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `set_task_monitor` with `idempotencyKey`, `nextCheckAt`, and `notes` at the top level. 2. The schema rejects the call because scheduling fields belong inside `monitor`. 3. Before this change, the provider received no guidance about the required shape. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `35c75b56d4` with a failing Rust regression. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. This affects the native runner tool bridge. ## What Changed - Add monitor-specific repair guidance to the runner's existing safe schema error path. - Keep feedback within 512 bytes and omit submitted values and unknown field names. - Show the nested monitor request in the production tool description. Refresh generated contracts and catalog identities. - Test flat and nested invalid input, private value handling, and unchanged authorization errors. - Test rejection, correction with the same key, saved schedule and audit, receipt replay, and one timer wake with real PostgreSQL and the native tool authority. - Update execution documentation and the task verification recipes. ## Verification - Red/green: the Rust provider error regression failed on master because monitor repair guidance was absent. It passed after the fix. - Passed: 29 PostgreSQL monitor and scheduler integration tests. These use the real tool authority and scheduler, with a no-op process agent for wake delivery. - Passed: the native Codex server vertical-slice test. It runs the rebuilt Runner binary with a fake provider and checks durable results and session resume. - Passed: map structure checks, Rust formatting, and `git diff --check`. - Passed locally: full repository `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 392 Rust library unit tests. - Passed on commit `3b667ad24763c1828edd48f56ef7a10766aeb946`: [CI run 39290889768](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39290889768), including all server, Runner, serialized, browser, typecheck, build, and canary gates. Across the PR, 56 checks passed and four conditional checks were skipped. No check remains pending or failed. - Greptile: 5/5 on that exact commit. The check concluded success, with no review comments or unresolved threads. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete. It was stopped after the full CI suite passed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - The first PostgreSQL attempt could not bind localhost inside the shell sandbox. It passed with normal localhost access. The first broader Rust attempt had 37 socket-permission failures and 355 passes; all 392 passed with localhost access and no code change. - Live model recovery was not run. Local execution policy did not authorize an extra acceptance run through the signed-in provider account. This PR does not include a deployment or recovery of an existing task. ## Risks - Error feedback must not reveal submitted values. Tests cover private values, unknown keys, nested constraints, length bounds, and unchanged generic authorization errors. - This changes guidance only. It does not relax the schema, retry calls automatically, or change scheduling authority. - A new runner binary and refreshed provider contract must reach the target instance before agents receive this guidance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime suffix 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
|
3e5a9f5afe |
perf(ui): load recent tasks with bounded summaries (#16851)
Replace passive recent-task detail reads with bounded, authorized summaries. Keep account isolation, stored history, task actions, and live recovery behavior. Overlap access checks with shell settings and avoid duplicate session and health reads on the first healthy socket opening. Retain domain reconciliation. Add focused coverage and local performance evidence. Isolate the existing cache capacity test from entry expiry on slow CI runners. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d20cb69ce5 |
fix(heartbeat): preserve active retries when comments arrive (#16855)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Heartbeat retries preserve task ownership after a recoverable failure. > - The issue read model includes retries that are scheduled, queued, or running. > - The human comment route treated every retry in that model as parked work. > - A normal status comment could therefore cancel a running continuation and return its task to Todo. > - This pull request limits comment supersession to parked retries and checks that state at the cancellation fence. > - The agent can keep working when a person adds context. Explicit Stop and Interrupt remain available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Board comment on an in-progress task cancelled its running recovery continuation. The handler read a live retry from `getCurrentScheduledRetry` but did not check its status. The cancellation also forced workspace recovery when copy-back did not complete. **Expected behavior** A comment must preserve queued and running execution. Only a retry that is still `scheduled_retry` may be superseded. If promotion wins the race, the comment must keep the task in progress and follow the normal wake path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task retry advance from `scheduled_retry` to `running`. 2. Keep its retry reason and source run identity in the stored row. 3. Post a normal human comment, without an Interrupt request. 4. Observe the old handler cancel the run and move the task to Todo. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master base `9966f31bee`. The staging incident served `f3cd3f4ea89539b68410841d39ec15a5c626007f`. **Deployment mode** Staging server with a remote runner. The defect is in the core comment and cancellation path. Refs #16835 and #16843. Those repairs cover runner health and workspace preservation. This change prevents a normal comment from requesting the wrong cancellation. Related #9732 promotes human wakes on parked retries; it does not protect a retry that is already running. ## What Changed - Check the live retry status in both comment routes: POST comments and PATCH issue with a comment. - Add an optional expected-status fence to cancellation. A concurrent promotion or terminal outcome returns a no-op result. - Make due-retry promotion honor a cancellation claim under its issue and run row locks. A scheduler cannot promote work after cancellation has won. - Finish persisted cancellations of parked retries through the existing startup and periodic recovery sweep. Preserve their original request and retry a failed settlement without starting provider work. - Keep the task active when guarded cancellation does not win. Do not record a cancellation that did not occur. - Add route regressions, real PostgreSQL race tests, and pending-retry and explicit Stop safety coverage. - Exercise both normal HTTP comment routes with real services, stored Board membership, PostgreSQL, and a live child process. Assert that the process can still perform work, the task keeps its original execution, and no second executor starts. - Document the comment supersession contract and update the task feature/access maps with the local regression coverage and deployed acceptance recipe. ## Verification - Before the fix, all four POST/PATCH regressions cancelled queued or running work. - Before the fix, the real PostgreSQL race test cancelled a retry that became running after lookup. - The comment-route suite passes **103 tests**. The final dispatch, cancellation, restart recovery and HTTP/live-process suites pass **119 tests**, for **222 affected tests** across these runs. They cover comment delivery, both sides of the promotion race, concurrent terminal outcomes, pending retries, explicit Stop, and a live process that can continue work. - Command: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/run-control.test.ts`. - The normal HTTP/live-process acceptance suite passes all **14 tests**, including both comment endpoints with stored Board membership and deterministic wakeup teardown. - Review exposed a second race after the cancellation claim. Its new PostgreSQL test failed before the dispatch guard with `promoted` and passes afterward with `not_promoted`, followed by completed cancellation. - A real PostgreSQL constraint interrupts the terminal cancellation write after its intent commits. The assembled recovery service failed to settle that row before the repair. Afterward a fresh service settles it, clears its task lock, cancels its saved wake, preserves the original request and leaves unrelated parked retries alone. A repeated database failure preserves the intent for a later successful sweep; a second successful sweep adds no duplicate event. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Server typecheck and build pass again after the final server-only review fix. A local full-suite attempt started on `f8773bf` did not return an overall result; its log is preserved and no local full-suite pass is claimed. The new recovery change passes the focused suites and fresh server typecheck/build. Latest-head CI on `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` is green: the full PR workflow and commitperclip review passed; only the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - Greptile reviewed final head `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` at **5/5**, with no unresolved findings. All actual latest-head CI checks passed; the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes after the map updates (34 areas, 172 capability IDs); it checks structure only. - Fixed-revision staging acceptance is pending deployment. The original workspace remains held and its latest source checkpoint is backed up and verified. ## Risks - A promoted retry must keep its execution and ownership when a comment arrives. The database status predicate and route no-op handling enforce this at the race boundary. - A cancellation intent must prevent promotion without leaving work parked forever after a restart. The recovery sweep consumes at most 20 such intents per pass through guarded cancellation, and a failed settlement keeps its intent for retry. - A parked retry must still accept fresh instructions. Its existing cancellation and wake behavior remains covered. - Ordinary Stop and Interrupt calls omit the expected-status option. Their cancellation authority is unchanged and remains covered by the run-control suite. - No schema migration or API request contract changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` in Codex, with extra-high reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose its 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 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
|
be380ba155 |
fix(ui): hide agent-created tasks by default (#16157)
Hide agent-created, system-created, and chat-channel tasks from independent collections by default. Preserve task hierarchy context and existing inbox participation. Add a saved opt-in checkbox without helper text. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fc3b15537b |
fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040)
Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6c198d616e |
fix(issues): preserve human handoffs from the active agent run (#16082)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks have one owner, and the server records assignment changes. > - An agent can finish its work by handing the task to a human for review. > - The assignment route stops the active run before it saves that handoff. > - When the caller is that run, a slow workspace restore can exceed the stop timeout and prevent the assignment from saving. > - Recovery can then mark the task Blocked while its comment says the handoff succeeded. > - This pull request lets the authenticated legacy run save a human handoff and finish its turn normally. > - Other actors and transfers to executable agents keep the verified stop requirement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13730. Related: #13782, #14700, and #15094. **What happened?** An agent posted its review handoff, then sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` to assign the task to its human creator with status `in_review`. The route cancelled that same run before saving the assignment. Workspace restore took 66 seconds. The stop limit is 60 seconds. The assignment never committed. Recovery marked the task Blocked, and it stayed assigned to the agent. **Expected behavior** The authenticated active legacy run can hand its own task to a human and finish normally. The human assignment and requested review status must save without waiting for workspace restore. Native runs, board reassignment, agent API keys, and transfers to another agent still require a verified stop. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a legacy agent on its assigned task with a signed run token. 2. Send a task PATCH from that run with a human `assigneeUserId`, a null `assigneeAgentId`, and status `in_review`. 3. Make stopping the sandbox take more than 60 seconds. Before this fix, the handoff fails before the task update. With this fix, the update saves and the run finishes normally. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in hosted execution. The patch is based on master at `56a0bf0d492`. **Deployment mode** Hosted authenticated server with a legacy agent in a remote sandbox. The same route serves local deployments. PR #13782 proposes a broader exemption for all self-handoffs. This focused change limits the exemption to human recipients and legacy runs. It checks the exact active run, agent, company, and task, and it retains the stop requirement before an executable successor can take ownership. PRs #14700 and #15094 address later wake and recovery behavior after a reassignment stop. ## What Changed - Skip the reassignment cancellation only for an authenticated legacy run handing its own task to a human. - Reject later mutations from the outgoing run against its human-owned task, both in route authorization and under the update transaction locks. - Keep assignment permission checks, goal control, and queued human response protection. - Add route regressions for slow stops, active-run lookup, actor and runtime boundaries, recipient types, permission denials, and follow-up edits, completion, and reassignment. - Update the real HTTP low-trust handoff test to prove the run stays alive, its late edit fails, and the human wake receipt remains invalidated. - Add Postgres tests for saved assignment, former-owner rejection, and review state after the outgoing run succeeds or fails. - Document the handoff rule and update the task feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - 328 relevant tests passed across the route, issue service, low-trust HTTP, and legacy recovery suites. The route suite passed all 160 tests, and all 13 low-trust HTTP tests passed after updating the obsolete cancellation expectation. - Removing the production guard makes both slow-shutdown handoff regressions fail with HTTP 500. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - All 54 current-head checks passed; 2 optional Storybook checks were skipped. The CI lanes cover the full Vitest suite, typecheck/build, Runner checks, and product E2E checks. - Apex reviewed `c68fbfb356c3d80eb7136babb49940709a3c3459` at 5/5 with no findings; both earlier review threads are resolved. - The complete test lanes passed in CI. The duplicate local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI completed; it did not finish locally. All 328 focused local tests and full local typecheck/build passed. ## Risks - The outgoing legacy turn stays alive after the human takes ownership. Route and transactional ownership checks reject its later mutations of the human-owned task. Read and comment access follows normal policy. Goal control still runs before the handoff. - This exemption does not apply to native runs or another agent as recipient. Those paths still stop the old execution before assignment. - This fix prevents future failed handoffs. It does not infer or replay old assignment requests. - There is no schema change or API shape change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific runtime 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
|
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> |