2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	8002dfb06e	fix(evals): repair bounded TestOps protocol admission (#19011) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agent work through a governed control plane. > - Runner protocol qualification uses real providers and records selected cases in TestOps. > - A manual registration run starts an Allure watch session before it validates the case selection. > - Watch creates the job run, but it does not fill the empty job-run input in the child environment. > - The selection helper therefore stops before it can validate the new job run. > - A configured AWS concurrency ceiling can also reject a valid smaller hosted-runner request. > - Hosted tool-cache permissions can also violate Runner qualified-executable admission before a provider starts. > - This pull request captures official session identities, keeps both concurrency ceilings, and stages the same Node bytes in an owned directory. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18985. **What happened?** The [first registration attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41877603952) created an Allure job run, then stopped with `runner_testops_jobrun_missing`. The child inherited an empty `ALLURE_JOB_RUN_ID`. The helper made no job-run API read and executed no provider case. The current configured concurrency ceiling is 100. The controlled hosted cap is 57. The original catalog guard rejects 100 before it applies a valid requested value of 2. The [first service-selected attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41884365232) reproduced this second pre-provider failure. Its selected case was correctly reported as broken. No provider cell ran. A [second service-selected attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41887671585) passed selection, lock and cost preflight. Runner rejected a qualified ACPX launch artifact as group- or world-writable. It recorded no model request. The verified sidecar is mode 0755. Hosted Node is the only other launch artifact, which points to Node as the cause. The original run did not retain its exact mode. The TestOps reporter retained the infrastructure failure. **Expected behavior** The manual path must capture the job-run and launch IDs from the active official watch session. It must validate those IDs against the same GitHub run, job, launch and standing plan before provider work. A requested concurrency value must fit the configured ceiling and the selected runner cap. The default must use the lower ceiling. Before credentials, the worker must stage the same Node bytes in an owned directory and preserve Runner permission and digest admission. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Dispatch the trusted Runner protocol workflow with reporting enabled and an empty job-run service input. 2. Let `allurectl watch` create the registration session. 3. Observe that the original helper rejects the empty child input before selection validation. ## What Changed - Call the supported `allurectl job-run env` command for manual registration. Use a fixed argument list without a shell and bound its time and output. - Parse only numeric job-run and launch IDs. Reject missing, duplicate, malformed or conflicting values. Discard all other command output. - Bind the captured launch ID to the authoritative job-run response. Keep the service-supplied ID path and its existing checks. - Apply requested parallelism within both configured and physical ceilings. Use their minimum as the default. Keep the selected-case capacity and provider budget checks. - Snapshot the same current Linux Node bytes into a fresh owner-only directory before credentials. Verify the copy, execute it to bind its path and version, and put only that directory first on the job-local path. Record original and copied Node modes and hashes plus the actual sidecar mode and hash. Keep shared cache permissions and Runner security checks intact. - Add focused context, identity, concurrency, permission and secret-exclusion controls. Supply the production physical cap in the existing release-workflow fixture. - Fix the existing Kimi cancellation fixture to await the complete readiness sentinel within the same 100 by 10 ms bound. Keep its cancellation and cleanup assertions. ## Verification - The original empty-ID failure reproduces locally on the actual helper with all 41 standing cases and zero job-run API reads. - All 63 Node publication, projection, metrics, permission and workflow-security tests pass. The repaired manual context flows through the actual selection helper to case 194. Wrong launch, duplicate IDs, malformed values and command failures still stop selection. - The original catalog prefix rejects configured 100 / hosted 57 / requested 2. The repaired prefix admits 2, clamps a missing request to 57, keeps legacy 100, and rejects requests above either ceiling. - The full release-policy CI command passes locally: 72 release-workflow tests and 107 companion tests. The first sandbox run could not bind its loopback fixtures; the same tests passed with local-network access. The prior-head CI fixture omission is retained and fixed by supplying the same physical cap as production. - Both full static Node file groups pass locally: 418 passed and 11 existing opt-in skips, at concurrency 2. Initial runs used stale dependency links and failed. Correcting only isolated ignored links to declared cached dependencies and pnpm 9.15.4 removed those setup failures. Local Node 26.4 differs from CI Node 24; the exact-head CI below provides canonical verification. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml` and `git diff --check` pass. - The new staging helper passes all four tests as a nonroot Linux user with networking disabled. An actual retained Runner comparison reproduces the qualified-artifact rejection with Node mode 0777. The same Node bytes at 0500 in a 0700 directory pass that launch boundary and reach a closed provider session. The local turn still fails without credentials or network; this is permission proof, not a protocol case pass. Local Linux Node 24.21 differs from the hosted 24.22.1 executable. - Exact final head `8e06ee5611` [repository CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41892896405) completed successfully. Typecheck, build and all four Runner lanes passed. Runner package tests passed 4950 tests in 297 files, with 10 existing skips. Fresh exact-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no actionable findings or open threads. Prior `59378f` CI Kimi empty-sentinel race and canceled chat worker remain retained. - The patched manual workflow has not run against live TestOps. A separate service-triggered probe supplies its own ID. The service probe used the original concurrency guard with a temporary configured ceiling of 57. After the probe, the original repository ceiling 100 was restored with no active campaigns. That probe does not verify this patched concurrency code. The next launch waits for the protected merge and source/lock verification. ## Risks An incompatible official CLI output fails closed. The helper never evaluates the output or records its unknown variables. The existing job, workflow URL, source, plan and provider checks remain required. An omitted concurrency request now uses the lower of the configured and physical ceilings. Explicit requests above either ceiling still fail. The worker now executes a private copy of its existing Node binary. A copy, mode, hash, path, version or sidecar mismatch stops before credential access. The copy does not make dynamically linked Homebrew Node portable; this workflow path is Linux only. This change does not alter the provider roster, policy, limits, retries or result grading. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact hosted model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, code editing, repository inspection and tool 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 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	2026-11-04 15:22:59 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	039e0dad2c	Connect TestOps protocol plans to verified GitHub attempts (#18985) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people coordinate agent work through a governed control plane. > - Runner protocol evals test real provider sessions against a seeded mock control plane. > - The saved TestOps protocol plan has no GitHub executor. Its dashboard shows historical results. > - A current one-case attempt also failed before any tool call or provider output. Its retained public-safe snapshot withheld the error cause. > - This pull request connects selected cases to the existing trusted workflow and retains closed operator failure facts. > - Each selected case receives a current result. Missing evidence remains broken. Existing assertions and machine grades remain unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** The saved protocol plan cannot start a GitHub qualification attempt. Historical dashboard results can be mistaken for current execution. A failed provider turn can also lose its failure category when the live snapshot applies public evidence redaction. **Proposed behavior** The existing workflow accepts TestOps service inputs, validates exact case identities before provider work, runs the selected cases, and verifies their published statuses. Eval artifacts retain only validated failure phase, category, HTTP status, and retryability. **Reason and benefit** Operators can run the standing plan from TestOps and inspect current, source-bound results. A targeted pass cannot stand in for full-plan coverage. A failed startup can be diagnosed without publishing provider messages or request identifiers. ## What Changed - Add optional TestOps selection and protected reporting jobs to the existing Runner protocol workflow. - Keep the current actor, source, provider credential, and controlled accounting gates. TestOps retains the explicitly selected controlled or legacy mode and a separate 41-case Claude roster. Controlled mode preserves its existing reviewed policy, immutable bindings, tracing and zero-retry admission. Its paid workers explicitly use GitHub-hosted runners, matching the current manifest admission contract even when the legacy AWS fleet is enabled. - Bind the exact standing plan, workflow, job run, source revisions, selected cases, and saved statuses. Accept only verified workflow URL aliases. - Create a closed Allure projection inside the report job. Transfer only fixed case identities, check verdicts, numeric usage and statuses to the reporting environment. Controlled raw/chat/controller evidence remains private. - Publish one result for every selected case. Retain missing execution/report evidence as broken. Reject unsupported passes, model mismatch and source drift. Preserve the evidence schema literal, stop publication on cancellation, and retain closed API error codes/statuses. - Tag full selections separately from targeted attempts. Add bounded ingestion observation. Apply the exact TestOps filter before the unchanged controlled provider/cell-capacity check, so a one-cell registration fits a one-cell reviewed policy. - Retain up to eight eval-only closed provider failure records before board evidence redaction. Forward the original notifications unchanged. - Add selection, reporting, privacy, and admission regression controls. Document scope and remaining acceptance. ## Verification - Direct Node protocol publication, projection, metrics, and security tests: 56 passed. Focused controls exercise both mode admissions, missing controlled policy/retries/source rejection, closed result transfer, exact metadata, and missing-result handling. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml` and `git diff --check` passed. - A proposed one-cell controlled policy passed the actual hosted validator with a synthetic prepared request and zero provider calls. The actual 41-case catalog filter selected case194/get-task-context and the real hosted admission accepted it under maxCells1. Negative controls rejected the unfiltered41, unsupported provider, source, selection, origin, expiry and lock drift. This does not verify provider auth, a runtime build or TestOps publication; final merged source/lock binding is still required. - The actual diagnostic TypeScript module passed positive, negative, secret-exclusion, and unchanged-notification controls through the existing tsx runtime. A local actual-CLI startup serializer probe passed with closed facts, secret exclusion, exit status and read-only fixture cleanup. This used an isolated resolver into the existing dependency cache; canonical exact-dependency CI remains required. - Prior-head CI passed typecheck, Runner static/Rust/native-server checks and 4946 Runner package tests. One new serializer fixture failed during Linux read-only directory cleanup; this head applies the existing neighboring cleanup pattern. Unrelated chat E2E and CLI import timeouts remain retained. Latest-head required gates are pending. - Original current-source one-case attempt: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41860234840 . It failed with no tool calls or output. That failure remains retained and is not a passing qualification claim. - Diagnostic candidate attempt: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41863410602 . It retained the new closed field but still failed before output with category unknown. This disproves the claim that typed retention alone identifies the cause. - The earlier passing run https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40627274706 used controlled Braintrust routing. Both current failures used direct legacy credentials, a different auth path. Next acceptance is one explicitly controlled case with a reviewed current policy, followed by TestOps registration and a fresh full plan. None is claimed complete by this PR body. ## Risks The TestOps contract currently binds the existing 41 cases and one recorded Claude Sonnet 5 profile. Catalog changes fail closed until reviewed. This does not qualify other providers. Admission and execution qualify only the selected accounting mode; a controlled pass does not prove direct credential health. Model-request readiness retains pending operating reconciliation. TestOps ingestion can fail independently; persisted results are checked, and missing evidence is never accepted as a pass. The new failure field contains closed facts only; raw messages, identities, credentials, and tool payloads are excluded. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact hosted model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and tool execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used and the available capability details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs - [x] I have described the issue with the enhancement template field labels - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket ID - [x] I have run the available targeted local checks and reported the remaining checks - [x] I have added relevant positive and negative regression controls - [x] I have updated the authoritative protocol documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [ ] All required Paperclip CI gates are green on the latest head - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable feedback on the latest head - [x] I have addressed all current review feedback --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-11-04 11:17:56 -06:00