3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	f3af9887ca	fix(chat): keep each chat conversation in its own wake batch (#17054) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels let a linked user talk to an agent from Slack, GitHub and other platforms. Each external thread is a chat conversation that is bound to one issue. > - One issue can have many conversations. A GitHub pull request review makes one conversation for each inline finding thread. > - When replies arrive behind an active run, the wake queue merges them into one deferred wake. The merge did not look at the conversation. > - A reviewed chat run can attest only one conversation. A merged batch from two threads always failed attestation with `setup_failed` / `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`, so no reply got an answer. > - This pull request keeps each chat conversation in its own wake batch. The single-conversation attestation check stays the same. > - The benefit is that replies in different review threads each get their own attested run, one after the other. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16793 (related: chat origin during coalescing). No public issue exists, so the bug report follows. **What happened?** A linked user replied in three different inline review-finding threads of one pull request while the agent's review run was still active. The three wakes merged into one deferred wake. The promoted run failed in about 2 seconds with `setup_failed` / `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized` and `providerWorkStarted=false`. None of the three replies got an answer. The failed-chat retry cannot recover this batch, because a retry source holds one conversation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind two chat conversations (two GitHub finding threads) to one `in_review` issue. 2. Start a run for the assigned agent on that issue. 3. As the linked user, reply once in each thread. 4. Finish the active run. 5. See one promoted run that fails with `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`. **Expected behavior** Each thread gets its own run. Each run attests its one conversation and answers its reply. **Cause** `findExistingDeferredWake` matched on company, agent, issue and actor only. The active-run coalesce path had the same gap. `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` correctly denies a batch with more than one conversation. ## What Changed - `run-dispatch/domain/wake-context.ts`: add the `chatConversationId` wake-context key, a reader, and `wakeChatConversationsConflict`. A conflict means that both wakes have a conversation and the two conversations are different. - `issue-assignment-wakeup.ts` and `chat-channels/inbound/wakeups.ts`: stamp the conversation ID on each inbound chat wake. - `chat-channels/failed-run-retry.ts`: stamp the conversation ID on failed-chat retry wakes, so later replies do not merge into a retry from another conversation. - `wake-queue` admission: do not coalesce into an active run of another conversation. The deferred-wake lookup now matches only wakes of the same conversation or wakes without a conversation. - `heartbeat/queue.ts`: the same-scope queued or running coalesce target is skipped when the conversations conflict. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: describe per-conversation chat wake batching. - Tests: an integration regression in the GitHub review block of `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`, and unit cases for the active-run branch in `wake-queue/application/use-cases.test.ts`. ## Verification - Red before the fix: `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t "replies in review finding threads"`. The main case fails with one run: `{ status: "failed", errorCode: "setup_failed", error: "reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized" }`. - Green after the fix, same command, 3 of 3 pass: - Replies in two finding threads give two successive runs. Each run succeeds, has `paperclipExternalChatExecutionBound: true`, and holds only its own comment and conversation. - Two replies in the same thread still give one run with both comments. - After the linked identity is revoked, each separated run is still denied (`setup_failed`) and the adapter does not execute. - `vitest run src/modules/wake-queue src/modules/run-dispatch`: all pass, with the new cases (different conversation, same conversation, run without a conversation, non-chat wake). - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching`, `durable-chat-wakeup`, `chat-failed-run-retry-boundary`, `issue-queued-comments-routes`, `heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation`. - Full `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`: 823 passed, 1 timed out. The timed-out test (`GitHub terminal receipt composes pinned HTTP and durable source authority (held_token)`) passes alone with and without this change. The sandbox has a 4 GB memory cap. - Not run locally: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The server `tsc` process was killed at the 4 GB sandbox memory cap. CI runs both. - Runtime dependency note: the deferred-wake lookup adds one JSONB predicate to the existing deferred-wake query. It reads the same rows. The query count does not change. The integration regression runs it against embedded Postgres. ## Risks - Low risk. No schema change and no migration. - Behavior change: chat replies from different conversations on one issue now run one after the other, not in one batch. Before this change, such a batch always failed, so no working flow becomes slower. - Wakes without a conversation (non-chat wakes, and wakes queued before this deploy) keep the old coalescing. A deferred wake from before the deploy has no conversation key, so one later reply can still merge into it. That window closes when the queue drains. - The check keeps the single-conversation attestation in `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun`. Revoked identities are still denied. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), in Claude Code through the Paperclip agent harness. It used tool use (shell, file editing, test runs) and extended reasoning. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-20 22:47:24 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	0bff1d5cb6	refactor(server): simplify the wake-queue module (#13139) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server uses a deferred wake queue to release work at the correct time > - The wake queue had repeated decisions, helpers, queries, and recovery data > - This repetition made the module harder to read and left a drain invariant implicit > - This pull request moves pure decisions into the policy layer and simplifies the queue flow > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer module with the same behavior and direct test coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13136 **Problem:** The deferred wake queue carried repeated logic across the application and database layers. **Expected behavior:** The queue keeps the same wake, release, recovery, and escalation behavior after the refactor. **Solution:** Move pure decisions into the policy layer, share repeated data and predicates, and state the drain invariant in the application layer. ## What Changed - Remove the unused database port method and carry the blocked release notice kind as a typed field. - Move four pre-drain decisions into pure policy functions with table-driven tests. - Resolve the responsible user once in the application layer. - Use the canonical helper for agent invokability checks. - Share string helpers and run predicates across the module. - Split the deferred-wake decision flow and share recovery facts with a discriminator. - Bound the drain loop and throw when it processes a wake identifier twice. - Rename queue ports to describe their behavior. - Share row-loading code between stranded-issue escalation adapters. - Restore the interaction-continuation integration test case. ## Verification - Run the three wake-queue module test files. They pass 61 cases locally. - Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. It passes locally. - Run the `server/` type-check and confirm that no error names the changed wake-queue module or `heartbeat.ts`. - Run continuous integration and confirm that `promotes an interaction continuation after removing a coalesced self-authored comment` passes. ## Risks The change refactors queue control flow and database adapter boundaries. The main risk is a behavior change in deferred wake release or recovery. The new policy tests and the restored integration case cover these paths. The local environment cannot run the integration test because the same dependency failure occurs on the base branch. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, context window not exposed by the runtime, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 00:03:22 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	6dd48cad43	refactor(server): move the release half of the deferred wake state machine into a wake-queue module (#13132) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The heartbeat service releases deferred issue wakes and promotes the next run > - The release logic sat in a large service function, which made its decisions and database effects hard to test > - A promotion race could reopen an issue without creating the promoted run > - Company checks did not protect every read and write, and some readers used a second transaction connection > - This pull request moves the release logic into a layered wake-queue module and closes these race and company-scope defects > - The benefit is clearer decisions, safer writes, and focused tests while existing callers keep the same entry point ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #10195 ## What Changed - Move the release half of deferred issue execution from `heartbeat.ts` into `server/src/modules/wake-queue/`. - Add pure policy decisions with table-driven tests. - Claim a wake before the reopen write and advance to the next wake when the claim fails. - Add company predicates to guarded reads and writes. - Pass the transaction-scoped issue snapshot to reader ports. - Keep `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` as the public wrapper. ## Verification - Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Run `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` inside `server/` and compare the result with the known baseline. - Run the wake-queue unit and adapter tests in continuous integration. - Check the promotion-claim ordering, guarded writes, transaction-scoped reads, and cross-company outcomes. - Search the pull request diff for internal issue identifiers. ## Risks - The refactor changes the transaction path for deferred wake release. - A stale or lost wake claim now skips that wake and continues with the next queued wake. - The public wrapper keeps its name and signature, which limits caller risk. - Continuous integration must confirm the full server test suite and build. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model version not exposed, context window not exposed, with shell, Git, and GitHub tool use. ## 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>	2026-09-09 21:01:26 -07:00