mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-25 17:45:53 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
51a843e135
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Worktree provisioning clones a source database into an isolated workspace > - Source validation must accept a migration journal that matches a prefix of the checkout journal > - Long-lived instances can apply migrations in a different order after migration files are renumbered > - The validator compared application order with filename order and rejected a valid source > - This pull request compares the resolved migration names as a set and records the checkout-prefix revision > - The benefit is that valid renumbered migration histories can pass source validation without allowing divergent histories ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Worktree seed source validation compared applied migrations in database application order with available migration files in filename order. A current source with the same migration set failed with `Migration journal is not a prefix` after migration files were renumbered. **Expected behavior** Source validation must accept a source when its resolved applied migration set equals a prefix of the checkout migration files. It must still reject a source that contains a resolved migration outside that prefix. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Apply migrations before a migration-file renumber operation. 2. Update the checkout so the same migration files have a different filename order. 3. Run worktree seed source validation against the long-lived source. 4. Observe that positional comparison rejects the source even though the sets are equal. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on the master-equivalent worktree-seeding implementation before this commit. **Deployment mode** Local dev with embedded PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Compare resolved applied migration names with the expected checkout prefix as an order-independent set. - Derive the reported source revision from the checkout prefix instead of database application order. - Add unit and embedded-PostgreSQL regressions for shuffled application order, stale unresolved rows, lagging sources, and true divergence. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` — 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - The focused suite includes the real embedded-PostgreSQL seed path. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to source migration-prefix validation. - The validator still rejects missing or unknown resolved migrations. - Duplicate resolved names remain set-equivalent by design. Raw stale journal rows remain tolerated. - Existing documentation already specifies order-independent checkout-prefix behavior, so no documentation change is required. > 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 - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`. The Codex runtime manages the context window. The model used reasoning, shell tools, code execution, and test 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>