mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-07 07:55:47 +01:00
eeef850419089e418485540197593fdd74c0bcbd
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
8373d78679 |
fix(recovery): register missing native preservation on Retry (#17800)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and their saved work. > - Native runs can leave a prepared remote workspace after a control deadline. > - The deadline repair in #17788 records preservation for future failures. > - Older failed runs can still have an active lease without a preservation owner. > - Retry correctly refuses another executor, but nothing can finish the missing preservation. > - This pull request registers the exact prepared source through the existing recovery services when the user retries. > - The bounded maintenance worker can then stop the provider and save its files before normal admission continues. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A historical failed native run has a prepared workspace and an active retained allocation. It has no workspace preservation record. Ordinary Retry cannot prove that the old executor stopped and has no maintenance owner to produce that proof. **Expected behavior** A deliberate Retry registers missing preservation for the exact unowned source. Existing recovery proves termination and saves the files. Existing admission then checks current user authority, effects, pause and budget gates before one successor can enter the queue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist a failed native run with a prepared workspace, an active lease and a terminal, unowned finalization. 2. Omit the workspace preservation record, as an older deadline handler did. 3. Call the normal task Retry route. Before this fix, preservation remains absent and Retry cannot continue. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression fails on `46de15ff4b99bbee59c38f32f4f30b80ad5bbd24`, which already includes #17788. Related: Refs #17788 (future deadline failures), #17741 (committed recovery wakes), #17733 (connected Retry authority). #17773 adds source diagnostics and does not repair this missing registration. ## What Changed - Use native workspace preservation inside the existing issue-locked Retry transaction. A live finalization owner remains held. - Adopt a valid unowned preservation obligation through the existing bounded maintenance service. Bind it to the deliberate Retry intent without resetting an active generation. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for exact, mismatched and owned sources. Verify that registration cannot create a termination receipt or a successor. - Exercise the HTTP route, worker, real temporary file merge and queue admission with the stop reply held. Duplicate requests admit one queued turn after preservation. - Extend connected GitHub and Telegram Retry coverage for missing historical preservation. Document the contract and access boundaries. ## Verification - Red: the new historical-state regression fails on the base commit because `workspaceRestoreRecovery` remains absent. The mismatched and owned negative controls pass. - Green: the three focused historical-state cases pass with the fix against isolated local PostgreSQL 17. - The local HTTP journey restores saved files and retains newer host edits. It admits no successor while the provider stop reply is held. It admits one successor after verified preservation. The real GitHub and Telegram admission paths wait behind that recovery. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Green: 152 tests across four relevant suites, including all connected Retry safety cases. The six new cases pass again on final head `b8900801a3181fa673ea45f1129f968bbb08d1fd`. - Final-head GitHub checks: 55 successful, two intentionally skipped Storybook checks, and one neutral Paperclip bot review. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The Paperclip bot stopped before finishing and supplied no approval. - The full local command imported an earlier fixture revision before its assertions were corrected. It reported those two stale connected-fixture assertions and later hit the host PostgreSQL semaphore limit again. It was stopped after final-head CI completed. It is not counted as a full local pass; the complete CI test lanes passed on the final head. - The first local rerun hit the Mac PostgreSQL semaphore limit before assertions. Verification moved to an isolated disposable PostgreSQL container. Early assembled fixtures also exposed the existing destruction-cleanup gate; the retained-workspace fixture now uses its actual `keep_running` disposition. This fix does not weaken cleanup. ## Risks - Retry now registers maintenance for historical native failures. Exact descriptor, allocation and coordinator checks remain owned by the existing preservation service. Physical recovery still requires its existing exclusive owner and provider stop receipt. Registration alone grants no execution authority. - No database migration or provider protocol changes. No model, trust, assignment, retry-budget or external identity changes. - Local recovery uses real database, filesystem, HTTP, worker and admission code. Only the provider lifecycle boundary is simulated. No hosted allocation or live model turn has been verified for this new change. - The workspace recovery test file crosses 1,000 lines because this case shares its real database, filesystem and assembled route fixture. Keeping it there avoids duplicating that fixture or extracting unrelated production behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact model identifier 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
|
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
|
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
|
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> |