2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	051b425fdf	fix(evals): price explicit response model identities (#17808) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E operations reserve model cost before each provider request. > - Providers can return an exact snapshot name after a request selects a model alias. > - The estimator required the response name to equal the request alias. It left valid snapshot usage unpriced and invalidated its reviewed bound. > - This pull request lets a versioned pricecard declare a small list of exact response names that share its reviewed rates. > - The benefit is correct cost coverage while request selection and unknown-model handling stay strict. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17765 for the shared eval gateway request policy. **What happened?** An eval request can select `gpt-5.4-mini` and receive `gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17`. Even with complete usage, the estimator returns `null`. The gateway also rejects that response identity as evidence for its reviewed reservation bound. **Expected behavior** A pricecard can name exact response identities with the same verified rates. Unlisted snapshots stay unknown. A declared response identity must not become an allowed request identity. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a route with an alias pricecard and an exact response snapshot. 2. Return complete Responses usage for that snapshot through the gateway. 3. Observe that the old estimator leaves the charge unknown and invalidates the bound. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in the shared estimator and gateway at `507dc70be26c191e372f09e58dc0965e73bf8f57`. **Deployment mode** Other: the credential-free Product E2E operations harness. The same library serves attached deployment targets. ## What Changed - Add optional `responseModels` to versioned eval pricecards. Validate one to sixteen unique exact additional identities. - Reuse one response matcher in cost estimation, reviewed bound checks and supported request-policy cache-write attribution. Cache attribution also requires the reviewed provider and request identity to match. Keep exact request-model admission unchanged. - Admit the field in the strict operations manifest. Include it in the existing whole-price bound digest. - Cover fragmented JSON and SSE forwarding, persisted usage, durable ledger replay, partial responses, unknown snapshots, invalid mappings, stale bound evidence and unchanged request admission. - Document mapping provenance, version changes and preservation of historical ledgers. ## Verification - Focused provider usage, gateway and operations tests: **185 passed, zero skipped** on the cache attribution follow-up. The exact snapshot assertions failed before the initial repair. Three positive cache-write snapshot tests also failed before the follow-up and now pass. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: passed after building required workspace declarations. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 4,311 passed, two skipped and four failures. The same four failures reproduce on unchanged base `507dc70` (79 passed, four failed in the two affected files): two Daytona Copilot image identity assertions and two Pi catalog/profile expectation assertions. This PR does not change those files or their source inputs. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed again on the exact cache attribution follow-up commit. - The private Cloud consumer passed 57 offline compatibility tests again on this exact follow-up source. These cover the declared snapshot estimate, exact request selection, unknown snapshot and incomplete usage handling, ledger holds, and source export admission. No provider calls were made. - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: interrupted after repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures in existing native-session and other database suites. The failed attempt is preserved and does not count as a full local suite pass. Only this checkout's verified test process group was stopped; it left no processes running. The first sandboxed workspace typecheck could not open a local tsx IPC socket; the later authorized check passes. An initial runner typecheck also lacked fresh-checkout workspace build declarations; its later run passes. - All forwarding tests use local synthetic response bytes. No provider calls, releases, deployments or paid eval campaigns were run for this repair. ## Risks - An incorrect mapping can apply incorrect rates. The pricecard author must verify provider provenance and change the price version. Validation bounds the list and uses exact matching only. - Existing pricecards remain exact-name only when the new field is absent. Adding or changing a mapping invalidates old reviewed bound evidence. Historical ledgers and receipts are not rewritten. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning, source editing, terminal commands and credential-free tests. No model inference was used by the eval harness for this repair. ## 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 - [ ] 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	2026-10-26 21:34:30 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bd709df8b	Operationalize Product E2E accounting, tracing, and scheduling (#17009) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform. > - Product E2E tests exercise real agents, tools, setup and cleanup. > - Repeated runs need retained costs and traces, including failed attempts. > - A passing retry must not hide earlier spending or feedback. > - Recurring work also needs admission limits, private reports and failure detection. > - This change supplies those controls while keeping paid activation behind existing gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16996 and #17158. This is the consolidated landing of the reviewed eval operations stack: #17019, #17024, #17025, #17027, #17030, #17033, #17035, #17038, #17043, #17044, #17048, #17050, #17051, #17092, #17096, #17100, #17107, #17109, #17112, #17115, #17117, #17121, #17123, #17127, #17130, #17133, #17134, #17137, #17140, #17143, #17154. The repository permits squash merges only. A local rehearsal showed that squashing each slice into master causes repeated conflicts in dependent slices. This PR preserves their commits and lands their combined implementation in one reviewed integration. Superseded slices will close after this merge. ## What Changed - Retain every attempt's cost receipt, including setup, failures, interruptions and retries. Separate reported amounts, estimates, missing costs and reserved capacity in reports and dashboards. - Add bounded request admission, exact model pricecards, gateway error accounting, cache policy and reconciliation evidence. Refuse unsupported routes and requests that cannot fit the allowance. - Integrate Braintrust gateway traces and OTLP correlation, with secret filtering and experiment imports. Record phase timing, including setup, feedback capture and cleanup. - Collect complaint and suggestion evidence after each attempt, including recovery after failures. Retain explicit review dispositions independently from the product grade. - Add gated daily and weekly selections, measured forecasts, setup/readiness checks, wall-time limits and retained monitor notifications. Include declared non-model overhead in admission while reporting the existing subscription separately. - Keep recurring history private, bound uploads and retention, and use isolated archive environments. Keep public publication an explicit operation. Report and publication jobs install only the committed lockfile, with scripts disabled and isolated stores; stale pins fail closed. - Integrate current master, preserve its Product E2E journey billing and privacy checks, and test that shared setup receipts do not double-count estimated agent usage. Preserve upstream fixture repairs. ## Verification - Complete integration baseline `0649a5ce7544ab20825c2183d2f421157db49f24` includes master `a3e1d915a7110a4e115b46396a3f79e6dfb4d05e` and every original stack head as ancestors. - On that integration baseline, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 4,012 Vitest tests passed, two skipped, across 193 files; all 137 Node source-contract tests passed. - Focused billing and Product E2E journey contract checks: 24 tests passed. They cover estimates, unknown receipts, single-owner setup costs, browser-only execution and private publication guards. - Monitor and workflow wiring: all 96 Node tests passed. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passes after the standard Runner TypeScript build refreshed local declarations. The first attempt rejected the new master `runner_prepared_launch` union member because this checkout retained an older generated declaration; the source union already contained that member. - Current head `492b0708a1c531a023d9ac10f0f3dc6383cc1754` removes dependency re-resolution from archive-authorized reporting jobs after the security scan flagged it. All 15 workflow-security tests pass after updating the old two-install assertion. - Hosted [CI run 39965460180](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39965460180) passes on the current repaired head, including typecheck, build, general tests, Runner checks, browser shards and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact head with no unresolved threads. The security scan passes after the fixed lockfile-resolution thread was resolved. - Paperclip Review returned a terminal neutral check but an incomplete 0-file assessment on the repaired head: its platform blocked both diff responses as prompt-injection content. This is not a successful code review. No bypass or fabricated pass was attempted; current-head Greptile, security and hosted CI are independent gates. - No paid test, reservation release or recurring-run activation accompanies this landing. Live route qualification and invoice reconciliation remain separate evidence. <details> <summary>Retained earlier validation failures</summary> Earlier broad local runs had two 15-second test timeouts (CLI poll cadence and Retry validation), one embedded-database setup timeout, and later PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion. The exact timed-out tests passed separately without larger timeouts; the broad-run causes were not established. Those local failures remain distinct from subsequent hosted CI results. The independent #17158 fix records its Muse fixture collision, its UUID correction and hosted verification. Local Muse execution was also blocked by macOS embedded-PostgreSQL startup. No historical failure is treated as a successful paid qualification. </details> ## Risks - Admission is a local control, not a provider invoice cap. Missing provider receipts or resource charges retain unknown amounts and holds; estimates do not become billed dollars. - The bounded path admits only documented local suites and provider routes. Ordinary legacy or separate Runner protocol campaigns have different controls. Merging this code does not qualify additional routes. - Recurrence still needs the existing enable gates and current qualification/allowance evidence. Archive permissions and resources must match the documented private-environment contract. - Legacy reports may lack complete attempt or phase evidence. Reports preserve that limitation and do not infer zero usage from missing data. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment 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 (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; full-suite host limitation disclosed 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>	2026-10-23 07:18:37 -07:00