mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 18:19:05 +02:00
fb0a66786818a8c1ea74b4870ebf0a72ccd3fc3c
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
fb0a667868 |
Rebuild verified recovery transfers after controller restart
Rehydrate only the pinned recovery snapshots if staging files disappear. Preserve attachment descriptors and fresh branch intent during reconciliation and restoration. Bound storage reads to the recorded byte size. Validation: 6 focused fresh retry, transfer staging, and task dispatch tests passed. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
dec50387d0 |
Delegate fresh retries to workspace providers
Reserve replacement bindings with task revision checks and retain the failed workspace. Cache verified recovery archives at stable transfer paths, delegate their materialization, and keep projectless directory identities through later turns. Existing local recovery keeps its filesystem implementation. Validation: targeted SDK, reservation, task dispatch, snapshot staging, and assembled workspace preparation tests passed. Broad verification deferred to GitHub CI as requested. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
6204239cfc |
Support installed default project workspace providers (#17247)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storage plugins already own project storage and task checkout preparation. > - Core only selected these plugins through an explicit project policy. > - Installation could therefore leave new and existing projects on incompatible Core preparation. > - This pull request adds one generic manifest declaration and one shared effective-policy resolver. > - Project configuration shows inheritance while durable workspace bindings retain their owners. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin contracts, project configuration, and execution workspace preparation. **Problem or motivation** An installed storage provider cannot become the company default. Projects without an explicit provider keep Core preparation, even when their execution environment cannot use a Core Git checkout. **Proposed solution** A provider declares supported `workspaceProvider.defaultForProjects` mode and strategy. Company-enabled installations supply inherited defaults. Explicit plugin selections and explicit Core/local (`storageProviderPluginId: null`) win. Conflicting defaults require an operator choice. The declaration and implementation contain no provider-specific identifiers. **Alternatives considered** Rewriting every project would lose the distinction between inheritance and overrides. Selecting by worker health would silently change storage on an outage. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing workspace and sandbox provider contracts. The roadmap has no duplicate default-provider implementation. Related public work includes #17243, which covers prepared execution directories rather than provider selection. ## What Changed - Add a validated generic default-provider declaration and document it in the SDK. - Resolve provider selection and Git defaults consistently in project responses, source selection, heartbeat source resolution, reservation, and preparation. - Keep stored policy separate from effective configuration. Add the normal project configuration selector for inheritance, explicit plugins, and Core/local. - Preserve existing local and plugin workspace ownership. Pin selection through preparation and keep provider failures visible. - Add database, API, manifest, heartbeat, and UI regressions. Update the verification maps. ## Verification - Targeted Vitest runs cover manifest validation, project defaults and API access, explicit overrides, existing ownership, new/imported task inheritance, heartbeat routing, source-free tasks, selection pinning during setup, and UI configuration. - Combined policy, provider integration, and heartbeat run: 58 tests pass; 60 unrelated cases excluded. After the final shared-provider fallback fix, all 47 policy tests pass, including shared and operator-mode regressions. - Server and UI TypeScript checks, SDK build, verification-map validation, credential-pattern scan, added-comment scan, and `git diff --check` pass. - A downstream integration uses this Core resolver and preparation service with a real storage hook and mocked remote infrastructure. A new Git project reaches the hook without a stored provider ID. - Standard Greptile and Apex both scored 5/5 on |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
8b4ab65b1c |
Add plugin-owned project storage and task workspaces (#17001)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks can use isolated repository workspaces. > - Core currently prepares those repositories on its own filesystem. > - A storage provider may only expose repositories inside remote agent computers. > - Project storage and task workspace preparation must have one provider owner. > - This pull request adds that contract and keeps execution as a separate plugin interface. > - Core keeps authorization, durable task bindings, and lifecycle fences. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin SDK, project workspace policy, heartbeat preparation, execution leases, and workspace lifecycle. **Problem or motivation** Core cannot prepare a task workspace when its repository storage is unavailable on the Core host. An execution lease must not be required just to prepare persistent storage. **Proposed solution** Let one plugin provide project resource lifecycle and workspace prepare, inspect, restore, and remove behavior. Core reserves a task workspace before it calls the plugin. The plugin returns an opaque durable reference. The matching execution plugin receives that reference on its task RPC. **Alternatives considered** Preparing repositories on Core would require a provider mount on Core. Preparing them only during task launch would tie persistent workspace lifecycle to execution leases and agent availability. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the remote provider model in ROADMAP.md. Related execution work is in #16978. This PR does not replace that task bridge. Native execution of managed storage requires the bridge; this change fails closed when it is absent. ## What Changed - Add one storage provider declaration with supported modes/strategies, a capability, a validated RPC contract, and a test harness. - Persist provider ownership, repository revision, and execution-workspace identity before external effects. Reconcile retries with a stable operation ID. - Prepare provider storage before environment acquisition. Keep Core filesystem preparation out of this path. - Pin the durable reference to the matching execution plugin and validate the lease binding before task dispatch. - Route inspection, reopen, and removal through the existing lifecycle process. Keep local data when remote recovery is uncertain. - Keep the application database pool free during lifecycle locks. Preserve pending workspace selections, validate source edits before retirement, and retry unfinished closed storage cleanup. - Protect provider metadata and live repository sources from caller edits. Storage edits retire only closed records with confirmed removal; retired records cannot reopen. ## Verification - Current head `8214b3ca5`: all 25 provider lifecycle tests pass with `maxConnections=1`. They cover preparation, inspection, reopening, removal, a paused provider with responsive ordinary SQL and a competing source edit, pending selection preservation, rejected source edits, cleanup retry scheduling, and providers that cache operation results, and committed cleanup notifications for storage intent and recovered state. - Final frozen-tree lifecycle run on `8214b3ca5`: all 318 tests passed in 10 files, covering workspace services, reopen, compaction, task binding, project sources, heartbeat preparation, display caching, and source locks. - Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passes. The SDK build and all 128 SDK tests passed during initial verification; later SDK changes are documentation only. - Full CI on the previous head `ec5c7209a` passed all 55 applicable checks; 2 conditional checks skipped. Standard Greptile reviewed current head `342e6d9c3` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All 55 applicable CI checks passed on `342e6d9c3`; 2 conditional checks skipped. The Slack browser and CLI startup jobs passed on their single unchanged-head rerun. Its Apex review returned 4/5 with one pending-restoration issue. Commit `1b58943b1` reconciles that durable intent before cleanup, advances the generation without reopening the Core row, and blocks direct removal or retirement while intent remains unresolved. Standard Greptile reviewed `1b58943b1` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 54 applicable CI checks passed on `1b58943b1`; 3 conditional checks skipped. The chat job passed on its single unchanged-head rerun. Apex then returned 4/5 for a missing cleanup wake after recovery. Commit `8214b3ca5` atomically registers cleanup intent before storage intent and recovery-result writes. Its provider test observes real committed notification hints and the visible advanced generation. Standard Greptile reviewed `8214b3ca5` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 55 applicable current-head CI checks passed on the first run; 2 conditional checks skipped. Final Apex verification completed at 5/5 on this exact head: 38 files reviewed, no new comments, and no unresolved threads. The PR is ready for review and mergeable. - The first Apex review found five issues after a standard 5/5: application-pool starvation, stale pending selections, retirement during rejected source edits, lost cleanup retries, and reused inspection identities. Commits `6d72e7fd4` and `342e6d9c3` fix each with regression coverage. Archive lock waits use dedicated connections, and source edits fail promptly if the lifecycle is busy. Retirement compares normalized values. The normalized-source regression initially failed with the raw-value comparison; after moving the check after normalization, a clean provider-suite rerun passed all 24 tests at that stage. Those threads are resolved; the earlier Apex 0/5 is not a passing acceptance result. - Earlier local integration attempts could not bind localhost inside the sandbox. The same suites passed with permission to start local PostgreSQL. - The earlier broad local `pnpm test:run` overlapped edits and reported stale-revision and checkout-path/Git-fixture failures. It was not a final-tree result. Full CI subsequently passed; the original local failure remains part of verification history. - Local repository-wide typecheck/build cannot complete because `cargo` is unavailable. Direct server TypeScript checks and affected tests pass; full Rust and build validation comes from CI. - An earlier browser run on `ff918c5a8` failed in the unchanged case-filter journey: expected “Done,” received “All statuses,” with an announcement handler recorded during the assertion. The cause is not confirmed. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39500611857/job/118896954508) remains verification history. The unchanged shard passed in the next full CI run on `ec5c7209a`; no UI or fixture change was made. - Current-head browser shard 2 failed waiting five seconds for the mocked Slack setup Success heading. This PR changes neither that UI nor its fixture. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021232) remains verification evidence. The cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-shard rerun passed; no UI or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The workspace test shard passed its 3,978 general tests, then its CLI company-import/export fixture timed out after 30 seconds waiting for startup health before creating any company or workspace. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021855) remains verification history. The child reached external-PostgreSQL startup without exiting or reporting an exception. Its cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-job rerun passed, including the CLI fixture. No startup or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The new cached-removal regression initially failed because its fake worker advertised availability for unrelated fixture plugins, so another workspace changed its fake checkout state. Worker availability now matches the fixture plugin; the complete 25-test provider suite passes. - On `1b58943b1`, the chat shard timed out polling for one conversation after an authorized GitHub description edit. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39510521657/job/118930193418) remains evidence. The exact case passes locally against PostgreSQL (1 passed, 1,380 unrelated cases skipped), and this PR changes neither that test nor its handler. The original cause is unconfirmed; the single unchanged-job CI rerun passed without a code or fixture change. The original cause remains unconfirmed. - The diff was checked for credentials, private references, and generated artifacts. ## Risks This is an additive provider contract with no database migration. Existing projects keep their local behavior unless their policy selects a storage plugin. A selected provider must be ready and enabled. Unknown or unsafe cleanup fails closed. Managed native execution depends on #16978. Core refuses a host Runner fallback. Providers must fence lifecycle generations, preserve ambiguous retries, and report remote recovery honestly. Provider-specific live storage and guest mount qualification remain separate from these Core contract tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code execution, and tests. The exact model variant was not exposed. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (affected suites; broad-run limits are 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> |