mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
1815474597
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server owns each adapter execution and waits for it to settle after Stop. > - A Stop timeout reports that termination remains unverified. > - Existing phase timings arrive only after their work completes, so a stalled await has no timing. > - This pull request samples the pending phase when the Stop timer expires. > - Operators can identify the pending operation without treating diagnostics as stop proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The opt-in Sentry context for an unconfirmed adapter Stop timeout. **Current behavior** The timeout includes execution identity but no pending phase. A session close, instruction collection, workspace restore, or diagnostic write can remain pending without producing its completion timing. **Proposed behavior** Add a closed-list phase and elapsed milliseconds from the exact live execution control. Sample them when the timeout fires. Report `unknown` and a null age when the control or attribution is unavailable. **Reason and benefit** The next timeout can identify which operation is still pending. It does not require task text, paths, provider output, or additional database writes. **Breaking changes** No API or execution behavior change. The existing opt-in error context gains two fields. Related public work: #14639 added Stop identity diagnostics; #14866 and #14945 cover instruction cleanup and teardown outcomes. This change adds pending attribution to those paths. The native Stop work in #14802 remains separate. ## What Changed - Add a bounded tracker per execution control. Token scopes support nested and overlapping awaits. A late release cannot clear a newer scope. - Track adapter execution, ACP cancellation and settlement, diagnostic writes, and host cleanup. Keep a coarse host scope until the executor finishes. - Sample only the matching current control and settlement promise at timeout. Freeze the sanitized result. Use a monotonic clock and cap elapsed time at one day. - Test stalled operations, repeated Stop calls, stale and wrong-run controls, callback failures, scope bounds, and the real Sentry SDK context. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Six focused suites passed: 79 tests. They cover pending scopes, Stop control ownership, real ACP settlement stalls, and Sentry context isolation. - The real Sentry SDK contract ran with the audited optional peer `@sentry/node@10.71.0` installed outside the workspace. Valid phase and elapsed values were exported; arbitrary labels and nonfinite elapsed values were rejected. - An independent agent reviewed the production diff and ran the focused tests without blockers. - `git diff --check` and a redacted Gitleaks scan passed. The local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped during its large serial server batch to avoid duplicating the sharded CI suite. No complete local broad-suite pass is claimed. - All CI gates passed on `c223237b58aa8d479d1c66d7d399de30270bac4f`: 54 successful checks and two expected Storybook skips. This includes the full sharded test suite, typecheck, build, real Sentry SDK isolation, browser tests, canary dry run, and the security scan after the PR became ready for review. - Greptile scored the same commit 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. ## Risks This is diagnostic instrumentation. Cancellation, deadlines, teardown order, termination proof, and file recovery proof remain unchanged. Unsupported or uninstrumented work uses a coarse phase. Tracker overflow fails closed to `unknown`. The tracker emits no new run-log or Telemetry event. The existing Sentry opt-in gate remains in place. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The agent used code inspection, local command execution, automated tests, and an independent agent review. The runtime did not expose a more specific model identifier or context-window size. ## 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>