2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5	8ab89f41e4	fix(build): typecheck test projects in 4 GiB (#18738) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributors and agents typecheck this repository, often on machines with limited memory > - paperclipai/paperclip#18737 made `pnpm -r typecheck` fit in 4 GiB because the server now checks in layers > - The test projects outside `pnpm -r` still import server source through relative paths, so each one checks most of the server as one program > - These projects peaked between 6.9 GiB and 14.9 GiB, so they fail on a 4 GiB machine > - This pull request makes these projects read the server layers as declarations, and adds a CI step that keeps them that way > - The benefit is that every TypeScript project in the repository can now be checked in 4 GiB, and a later change cannot silently undo this ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai/paperclip#18737, which is merged. This pull request builds on the server layers that it added. No issue exists for this gap. **What happened?** `tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` peaked at 14.9 GiB at default settings. `tests/speko-native` peaked at 12.2 GiB, `server/src/__tests__/helpers/maintenance` at 9.6 GiB, and `tests/lifecycle-baseline` at 6.9 GiB. On one thread, `tests/runner-e2e` still peaked at 7.7 GiB. **Expected behavior** Each project passes with 4 GiB of memory. **Steps to reproduce** Run `tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` in a Linux container with `--memory=4g --memory-swap=4g`. The kernel stops the process. ## What Changed - Added `tsconfig.layers.json` to the four projects. Each file extends the project's `tsconfig.json` and references the generated server declarations. - Added `scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs`. It builds the server declarations and then checks the named projects, or all four. It takes `--low-memory`. - Changed `test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `test:lifecycle-baseline:typecheck` to call that script. `docker-runner-check.yml` calls the first script by name, so that workflow needs no edit. - Added `--declarations-only` to `server/scripts/typecheck-layers.mjs`. The script now also generates `tsconfig.declarations.json`, so hand-written configs do not name individual layers. - Exported `runPnpm` from `scripts/typecheck-low-memory.mjs`, so the new script can use it. - Added a step to the `Typecheck + Release Registry` job. It runs straight after the server typecheck and reuses its declarations through `--reuse-declarations`. - The script now fails if a project loads server source, even when the types pass. Test support files, declaration files and JSON files do not count. This check does not enforce a memory limit. - Added a unit test that fails if a new project under `tests/` is neither in `PROJECTS` nor named as a single program. `tests/runner-acceptance` is the one named project. - Added `server/src/types/express.d.ts` to `tests/lifecycle-baseline/tsconfig.json`. That plain config failed alone with 11 TS2339 errors, and it now passes. - Exported `isTestFile` from `server/scripts/typecheck-layers.mjs`, so the source check uses the same rule as the layers. - Turned off `declaration` in the layered configs. These projects emit nothing, and declaration checks gave a false TS2883 error when `tests/runner-e2e` read the server as declarations. - Added tests, one of which runs the real compiler. Updated `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `tests/lifecycle-baseline/README.md`. The references are not in each project's `tsconfig.json` because Vitest reads that file. A test showed that Vitest fails when a referenced config does not exist yet. The `tsconfig.json` files do not change, so editors and Vitest see the same configs as before. No new `package.json` scripts were added, as `.greptile/rules.md` requires. ## Verification I tested commit `9763880fab`, which is based on `1c9ca5829f`. I copied the commit into a named Docker volume and ran a fresh install. Each row ran in its own Linux arm64 container with `--memory=4g --memory-swap=4g` and 8 CPUs. The first row started with no build output. All rows used `--low-memory`. CI does not set a memory limit. I used the limit only for this measurement. | Project | Errors | Peak (cgroup) | Max process RSS | OOM kills | Time | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `tests/runner-e2e` | 0 | 3.34 GiB | 3.06 GiB | 0 | 57 s | | `tests/speko-native` | 0 | 3.60 GiB | 3.27 GiB | 0 | 51 s | | `tests/lifecycle-baseline` | 0 | 3.43 GiB | 3.15 GiB | 0 | 50 s | | `server/src/__tests__/helpers/maintenance` | 0 | 3.39 GiB | 3.13 GiB | 0 | 52 s | `PAPERCLIP_TYPECHECK_LOW_MEMORY=1 pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `PAPERCLIP_TYPECHECK_LOW_MEMORY=1 pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline:typecheck` also passed in the same limit, with peaks of 3.55 GiB and 3.52 GiB. I also ran the CI sequence in one container with the same limit: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`, then `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs --low-memory --reuse-declarations`. Both passed, with a peak of 3.46 GiB. The new step took 16 s. The server layer build sets the peak in each row. Against the declarations, the projects peaked between 0.9 GiB and 2.2 GiB at default settings on macOS. Server source files that each project loads, without test support, declaration or JSON files: | Project | Plain `tsconfig.json` | `tsconfig.layers.json` | | --- | --- | --- | | `tests/runner-e2e` | 1,345 | 0 | | `tests/speko-native` | 1,647 | 0 | | `tests/lifecycle-baseline` | 1,343 | 0 | | `server/src/__tests__/helpers/maintenance` | 1,716 | 0 | I counted these on `3f0f31b2f9`. The source check in the script confirmed 0 for all four projects on this commit. **Limits of this proof:** - Without `--low-memory`, the 4 GiB run does not pass. The kernel stopped the layer build for `tests/runner-e2e` on `3f0f31b2f9`, and the script exited with status 1. I did not repeat this run on the final commit. The script does not turn on low-memory mode by itself. - The Linux runs used arm64, not x64. - The new CI step has not run in CI. `pr-trusted.yml` runs from `@master`, so the step first runs after this pull request merges. Check its first run. **Other checks on this commit:** - `server/scripts/typecheck-layers.test.mjs`: 38 tests pass. One test uses the real compiler to show that the source check tells a layered config from a config with no references. - With the references removed from `tests/speko-native/tsconfig.layers.json`, the script exits with status 1 and reports 1,644 server source files. - With the declarations removed, `--reuse-declarations` exits with status 1 and reports TS6053. - A type error in a test project makes the script exit with status 1. - `tests/lifecycle-baseline/tsconfig.json` passes with 0 errors. - `tests/lifecycle-baseline` Vitest suite: 533 tests pass. - Workflow tests that read `pr-trusted.yml` and CI routing: 114 tests pass. **Earlier checks:** - `server/src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` passed 10 tests on `3f0f31b2f9`. This test failed in `ci / General tests (server (9/12))` on an older head. It tested a build script split that the final #18737 removed. - A changed signature in `server/src/services/run-liveness.ts` failed `tests/lifecycle-baseline/authority.test.ts` through the rebuilt declarations, before the rebases. When I restored the signature, the check passed. **Not run locally:** - `pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build`. CI covers these. **Failures that this pull request does not cause:** `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` has 13 failures on this commit, in `cursor-cloud-replay-fault`, `first-task`, `operating-receipts`, `pi-controls-evidence` and `workflow-security`. The same 13 tests fail on `master` at `6ef37398c8`. A comparison of the test names shows no differences. PR CI does not run this suite. ## Risks - Low risk to runtime behavior. No shipped code changes. - **Slower check:** `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` now builds the server layers on each run. Before the rebase, it took 30 s on macOS at default settings, about the same as the old single program for that project. On this commit it took 57 s in low-memory mode in the 4 GiB container. The new CI step reuses the declarations, so it took 16 s. - **Narrower check:** Server source is now checked only by the server's own layers, not again under each project's compiler options. The projects also skip declaration-portability checks. These projects emit nothing, so those checks had no output to protect. - **Unchanged path:** `tests/runner-e2e/native-completion-checks.mjs` still runs `tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` as one program. It needs about 15 GiB at default settings. I did not change it because that file and its inputs are part of a fingerprinted source contract, and no workflow calls it. - **Layer growth:** The new checks do not measure memory. If the layers or the import cycle grow, the checks still pass and the peak rises. This is intentional. Crossing 4 GiB does not fail a build. - **Project list:** The CI step checks only the projects in `PROJECTS`. The unit test covers new projects under `tests/`, but not a new project in another directory. - **Reused declarations:** `--reuse-declarations` trusts the declarations on disk. CI uses it straight after the server typecheck on the same commit. If that typecheck fails, the job stops first. Stale declarations can pass locally, so `doc/DEVELOPING.md` warns against this. - **Job dependency:** A type error in a test project now fails `Typecheck + Release Registry`, and so `ci / verify`. - **Not covered:** The new step runs no tests. `node scripts/typecheck-low-memory.mjs` and the Docker image build also have no new guard. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic. Model: Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), through Claude Code with 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-03 11:09:12 -08:00
DottaandPaperclip	96bf004a79	fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-25 15:28:11 -07:00