mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
002455ea06
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A user can stop or interrupt a running native task and then send a message to give new direction > - When the stopped run left a workspace hold, the dispatch gate withholds the follow-up run until recovery saves the work > - The gate must save the user's message on its receipt so that the deferred-receipt worker continues it after recovery > - Two conditions made the gate skip the message instead of saving it, so the task stayed in progress with "Saved work recovered. Send a message to continue." although the user already sent one > - This pull request saves the message in both conditions > - The benefit is that the message the user already sent continues once, automatically, after recovery ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a user stopped or interrupted a native task with an isolated sandbox workspace and sent a message, the follow-up run was cancelled with `execution_reconciliation_required`. Its error said "Saved work recovered. Send a message to continue." Nothing re-woke the task. In the interrupt case, a periodic sweep started a run about four minutes later. In the case where the follow-up first waited for the stopped run's workspace save (`workspace_busy`), each later retry parked on the same resolved recovery action, and the task did not continue. **Expected behavior** When the recovery that the follow-up waited on resolves, the message that the user already sent continues once, automatically. The product does not ask for a second message. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native task in a managed sandbox with an isolated workspace. 2. Stop the run (or send a comment with interrupt), then send a message while the stop and workspace save are still settling. 3. Wait for the workspace recovery to resolve. 4. See that the follow-up run is cancelled with `execution_reconciliation_required` and that no run continues the message. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` before this change. **Root cause** `deferUnstartedUserComment` (run dispatch) refused to save the withheld message in two cases: 1. It compared the message time with the source run's `finishedAt`. A native run finishes only after its provider stop and workspace save settle, which takes seconds. A message written after the Stop request but before that settlement was treated as input written before the Stop. The receipt was marked `skipped`. 2. It required the run's own receipt to be user-owned. A workspace-busy retry or an admission retry carries the user's message under a system-owned receipt, so the message was dropped with the retry. ## What Changed - Add `userStopBoundaryAt(run)` in `run-cancellation.ts`. For a run cancelled by a user Stop or interrupt, it returns the recorded Stop request time (`cancellation.recordedAt`) when that is earlier than `finishedAt`. For all other runs it returns `finishedAt`. - Use this boundary in the dispatch gate's message deferral, in native explicit-continuation admission, and in the remote-Stop continuation check, so the three places agree on "message written after the Stop". - When the withheld run is a system-owned retry, walk a bounded chain (max 8) of retries that did not reach the provider (`workspace_busy` with `providerWorkStarted: false`, or a verified pre-dispatch `execution_reconciliation_required`) to the originating user receipt. Save the message on that receipt with the user's original wake context. Mark the retry's system receipt `skipped`. - Update the "input written before the Stop" test so that the Stop request, and not only the settlement, comes after the message. ## Verification - New regressions in `server/src/services/workspace-recovery.test.ts` (`continues a message ... without a second message, after recovery already resolved`): a direct follow-up and a workspace-busy retry. Each runs recovery to completion first, then lets the gate withhold the follow-up, then runs only the deferred-receipt worker. Each asserts that exactly one successor run is queued with the user's message and the user's authority, and that no provider work starts. - Red before the fix: both tests fail because the receipt is `skipped` instead of `deferred_issue_execution`. Green after the fix. - `npx vitest run src/services/workspace-recovery.test.ts` (384 passed). - `npx vitest run src/services/explicit-native-continuation.test.ts src/modules/run-dispatch src/services/execution-continuation.test.ts src/services/run-cancellation.test.ts` (581 passed). - 19 more heartbeat, retry, queued-comment, and native recovery suites (1272 passed). One failure, `heartbeat-process-recovery > redacts opaque environment-bound credentials from Sentry diagnostics: result`, also fails on unchanged `master` and is not related. ## Risks - A message written after the Stop request but before the stopped run settled now continues. The stopping run cannot consume new input after its Stop request, and admission still removes comments that a run already delivered (`undeliveredLegacyUserCommentIds`). All admission gates (holds, stop proofs, approvals, budget) still apply. - Only user Stops and interrupts move the boundary. Other cancellations keep `finishedAt`. - The retry walk is bounded, stays in one company, agent, and issue, and accepts only retries without provider work. It revives a user receipt only from `cancelled` or `skipped`, so a second retry cannot save the same receipt twice. - Not in scope: a run that fails during native preparation with no user message (for example `runner_state_identity_mismatch: prior_owner_terminal_state_indeterminate; retirement_refused=unexpected_root_entry` on a system wake). After its recovery resolves, the task still waits for a user message. That is a separate root cause in the native session executor's prior-owner retirement proof. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local test runs). ## 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>