3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	208a093d19	fix(chat): preserve resumed review waits and retry newer saved input (#17725) ... <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/36/changes/paperclip/36 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review agents publish findings and wait for an authorized reply or head change. > - Review tools could retain the requester after resume while completion lost that same wait proof. > - A yielded report could then queue its own continuation or repeat a missing-wait error. > - Ordinary Retry could also select an older failed turn while a newer saved request had no admission. > - This change shares the existing authority proofs and canonical admission owners. > - Current access, publication, execution and budget gates remain required. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17318. Builds on the canonical saved-input retry owner in #17733. Related #16550 covers deferred legacy comments after ownership waits. The separate recovery repair in #17724 owns the cleanup-to-saved-input handoff; this PR does not add a second admission owner. A resumed review could publish an assessment, then turn its `response_wake` into an immediate `issue_status_changed` wake. A provider that omitted its continuation could instead repeat a completion error. A newer linked-human message saved during a budget hold could also remain unstarted because Retry selected the older failed source. ## What Changed - Resolve passive review waits through the accepted requester ledger used by GitHub tools. Require the latest reviewed head, exact company, task, agent, repository and processed publication under current access. - Fill omitted/null yielded continuation from that server proof. Permit an inherited normal tree resume only through its accepted parent identity. Permit an ordinary follow-up only after this run has a processed useful reply linked to its exact inbound message. Reject acknowledgements, partial assessments, pending or uncertain writes as that reply proof. - Recheck the same run/review/head/source proof during feedback, finalization and final status commit. Preserve explicit malformed-input rejection and Done policy. Add no monitor permission or publication grant. - Keep heartbeat and publication projections narrow. Preserve both published Copilot v62 identities and generate source-bound v63 from the pinned merged base. No v63 live qualification is claimed. - Certify the structured isolated-directory binding failure only at its pre-allocation boundary and only through canonical task Retry. Other workspace validation reasons and unknown effects remain denied. - Route Retry to eligible newer saved input through the existing canonical owner. Preserve the old result and skipped receipt. Require current principal, source, App, runtime fence, budget, native ownership and exact cleanup proof. - Recover absent historical App metadata only through an earlier trusted processed response receipt and an immutable non-null endpoint claim. Explicit malformed or conflicting metadata stays denied. - Revalidate execution through the exact claimed wake, coalesced task Retry and resolved user-continuation receipt after admission. A second normal Retry can recover the exact never-started authorization failure with unchanged saved input. Require empty execution evidence, exact diagnostics and no allocated or active executor. - Explain when a recorded result prevents exact replay. Ordinary board Retry directs a new task message to continue from saved work. Inherited requester identity alone never grants replay. - Keep accepted board-message preparation failures with the canonical task Retry owner. Certify the exact unchanged comment, original user wake, accepted same-user identity and absence of provider execution. Pin that source, recheck it at admission, and bind identity initialization to the coalesced intent and exact claimed successor receipt. Uncertifiable sources retain an actionable fresh-message refusal. - Return safe named authority categories for board Retry refusals. Update execution documentation and capability maps. Add no schema or polling loop. ## Verification - A fresh external review request exposed a separate isolated-directory preparation failure before allocation. Its first normal Retry saved an intent but admitted no successor. This follow-up certifies only that exact structured preparation boundary through the existing canonical Retry owner, with trusted failed settlement and no executor, lease, result or output. A real HTTP/queue regression reproduces the missing successor before the repair. Twenty-three current-source safety cases and the final 98-case Retry/HTTP group pass, including a fresh click after a denied intent, source revocation, accepted results and the older direct API remaining denied. The warning case uses actual configuration preparation and production event append; unknown warning shape or provider provenance stays denied. Full workspace typecheck, build, maps and diff checks pass. Renewed hosted normal Retry now succeeds on the final combined source: it preserves the exact saved request and linked requester, starts one native successor in a fresh attempt workspace, publishes the current-head 2/5 assessment and commits In review with passive response wake. - A later hosted normal Retry published a low-score assessment but lost its accepted source identity because the previous attempt failed before identity initialization. It repeated continuation errors, then submitted Done. This is failed acceptance, not a successful qualification. The initializer now retains the exact source only after execution-time failed-chat Retry authorization; generic Retry and Done policy are unchanged. A real queue/initializer regression fails with a null source on the previous code and passes with the newer saved source. Two real database completion cases verify that source yields the authoritative wait and commits In review. Renewed hosted normal Retry now retains the accepted source and exposes the authoritative current-review wait. It completed after two semantic feedback corrections (wrong contract revision, then wrong criterion IDs); the correct contract was present in emitted input. The third finish was accepted and committed In review, with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation. - Repeated board-message preparation failures now walk their canonical intent, failed dispatch and accepted parent identity, rechecking each contained predecessor. A production queue regression fails the second ordinary HTTP Retry before the repair and passes afterward. Changed source, contradictory execution evidence and cyclic receipts remain denied; traversal stops after twenty links. - New inherited omission cases failed before the repair. The final full PostgreSQL 18 wait/status suite passes **252 tests** under Node 24.22. It covers omitted/null input, malformed-first recovery, same-head resume, exact-source replies, changed heads, revoked access, pending/uncertain/mixed publications, final commit revalidation, no duplicate review and no self-wake. - **15 existing publication tests passed before the pinned merge** on a separate fresh database. They retain default partial-delivery and failure-fallback behavior. Context reads remain below the unchanged 16 KiB heartbeat and publication response limits with large saved output present. - Saved-input tests cover a real signed PR webhook, production accounting-budget refusal, normal policy recovery and canonical Retry. Historical producer-shaped tests prove the missing-App case red, then check trusted prior receipts and malformed, late, revoked or mismatched proof. A broader order-coupled test was reproduced on the prior source; its global fault injector now targets its own authorization query. The 43-case sequence passes without changing production behavior or its safety assertions. - New signed-ingress and real heartbeat execution tests reproduced the admitted-successor failure, then the next normal Retry failure. The final pinned merged source passes 249 full GitHub review/publication and Retry cases on a fresh database, including all 49 saved-input cases. A separate 74-case Retry/HTTP run also passes. Exact dispatch negatives cover source, company, agent, task, successor, receipt, pause, assignment, accepted success, controller and cleanup proof. Bootstrap contradictions remain denied. The canonical Retry suite passes 16 cases through its supported external PostgreSQL test connection. - The normal board HTTP route reproduced the unusable inherited-result refusal. It now returns actionable guidance without starting a successor. The actual UI Retry hook and banner tests pass 12 cases. - A production-shaped accepted board comment followed by a pre-provider qualification failure reproduced HTTP 409 before the repair. The final real HTTP/queue test certifies one canonical successor and preserves the accepted identity. It rejects changed source, actor, task, agent, result, controller, process, profile, allocation and receipt evidence. A post-acceptance source change keeps the same intent pending. Execution revalidation rejects removed or mismatched proof. The probe stops deliberately after production identity initialization; it does not claim provider execution. The final source passes the 75-case Retry group, the focused two-case board/inherited-policy group and 19 canonical Retry cases. Full workspace typecheck, build and map checks pass. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Map, module-boundary and diff checks pass. Full local `pnpm test:run` remains unverified. The 256-case explicit-native suite cannot initialize its packaged PostgreSQL because libzstd is absent; an existing command-scoped fallback did not resolve it. Current-head remote full-suite checks are required. Merged-source full GitHub+Retry (249), separate Retry/HTTP (74), full wait/status (252), profile/history and completion (75), and visible Retry hook/banner (12) checks pass. The fresh owned PostgreSQL 18 databases applied all 377 migrations. - Actual Rust Runner, OpenCode 1.18.34 and exact DeepSeek used unchanged production-generated synthetic contexts. Resume finished with an explicit server wait. The author-reply trial omitted continuation twice: its first report failed the existing empty-criteria check; the corrected second report still omitted continuation and received the exact server wait. It completed once with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation. Controller acknowledgments were synthetic; these probes do not establish hosted publication or board state. - Hosted combined testing proved automatic admission of the exact saved author reply, a useful GitHub answer and committed passive wait. It required two malformed-continuation rejections before a nullish fallback succeeded. A later normal Pause/Resume completed in one finish with explicit response_wake and no new review/comment. The admitted normal Retry then exposed the execution guard gap repaired here. Those remain checkpoint results. On the final combined source, renewed normal Retry completed actual native provider work and GitHub publication, committed the passive wait, released ownership and cleaned up its environment. A subsequent ordinary unmentioned author reply woke once, made no GitHub tool calls or new assessment, and completed its first finish with an explicit response wake. Both exact leases expired with successful cleanup and the queue was empty. However, final destination inspection found a separate automatic fallback overwrote the existing summary with a generic no-final-response message. External summary preservation therefore remains failed acceptance; the separate publication repair in #17726 owns that producer. Full combined publication preservation has not passed. These hosted runs include the pinned-base native additions; they do not qualify Copilot v63. - Current-head automated review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. All current-head CI gates passed (54 successful checks/contexts, four skipped, none pending). The earlier login-cleanup idle-work assertion also reproduced locally while its controlled baseline passed; its cause remains unknown, but the exact assertion passed in the fresh current-head CI shard. No timeout, assertion or production workaround was added. This PR is ready for review within its source, authority, native finalization, state, wake and cleanup scope. The independent automatic fallback publication regression is tracked by #17726; no complete combined workflow pass is claimed. ## Risks - The latest saved review defines the durable head boundary. Ingress must record a new head before admission. A reply receipt proves delivery only for its exact saved source; a shared GitHub comment ID alone cannot authorize this wait. - Historical App recovery cannot infer identity without direct proof or an earlier valid server response receipt. It never replays that response. - This does not infer review-score policy from instructions or override Done. No deployment, merge or repair of historical tasks is claimed by the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing and test execution. The context-window size is 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 (focused database and native suites; full local suite limitation described 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 (verified on immutable latest head) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (verified on the latest head) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-26 22:22:47 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	bf142db65a	perf(server): narrow external review wait context reads (#17562) ... Project current chat authorization fields for external review-wait discovery instead of saved execution input. Preserve typed source bindings, nested question receipts, candidate eligibility, live revocation checks, and stored context. Validation: 181 native chat integration tests, full build and typecheck, exact-head Greptile 5/5 (medium), full green CI, and no unresolved review threads. The full-context counterfactual fails both direct-chat size regressions. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-25 00:02:32 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	4173059081	fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model 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 (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation 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 07:14:40 -07:00