mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-05 03:51:54 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
057898530c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates durable agent work and recovery. > - Independent workers can find the same task needs recovery. > - The database permits one active recovery action for that task. > - A losing insert must read the action that already committed. > - Drizzle wraps the PostgreSQL unique violation in its cause. > - The current classifier reads only the outer error and misses that conflict. > - This PR recognizes the same allowed conflict through a bounded cause chain. > - Both workers can then return the one durable action through the existing retry path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18783. **What happened?** The saved-disposition-debt recovery regression failed in CI `41733864320`. Two recovery workers collided on `issue_recovery_actions_active_source_uq`. The fixture captured an unhandled PostgreSQL `23505` error. A separate canceled shard in that run lost its AWS Spot instance; that interruption is a different failure. **Expected behavior** Two service instances that race to create the same active action must return that one action. Unrelated database failures must still propagate. Existing transaction and ownership rules must stay in force. **Steps to reproduce** Hold a PostgreSQL SHARE lock on the recovery-action table. Start the same source-scoped upsert on two independent service instances. Confirm both real INSERTs are waiting in `pg_stat_activity`, then release the lock. The original code persists one action but rejects one caller with a `DrizzleQueryError`. Its outer code is absent; its `PostgresError` cause has SQLSTATE `23505` and the expected active-source constraint. **Paperclip version or commit** Supporting branch starts at master `54782706e1d83d92295246e499627930df03662d`. It now contains a normal merge of master `8771606fd87f69ed4057779e3dce3a9bca8088e6`. The classifier correction stays unchanged. The PR diff against that master still contains only the recovery service and its tests. ## What Changed - Inspect up to eight error causes with cycle detection. - Require SQLSTATE `23505` and one of the same two recovery-action constraint names on the same error. Support the PostgreSQL driver's `constraint_name` field. - Reuse the existing source-scoped retry path and its unchanged three-retry limit. - Add a deterministic real-database collision regression and no-retry controls for unrelated uniqueness, other SQLSTATEs and cyclic errors. - Keep the original recovery regression, assertions and timeouts unchanged. Keep the saved-skill journey separate in #18783. ## Verification - Review follow-up: the real collision test now checks the intended retry merge. The surviving action has attempt count 2, active status, the default unlimited budget, the expected owner, supplied evidence and supplied attempt timestamp. Its wake and monitor fields remain null. Existing identity and convergence assertions run first. - A disposable counterfactual returned the winner unchanged after the lost insert. It passed the original barrier, one-row, no-rejection and same-ID assertions, then failed the new attempt-count check with 1 instead of 2. The counterfactual was not committed. The production service was restored byte-for-byte. The actual service passed all seven focused race, no-retry and sequential controls. The affected canonical test-tree-2 typecheck passed against verified unchanged local declarations. - Parent `4f8abfe4f2244649219ef6ced3534634193f0b53` full CI `41746314291` passed all 48 selected jobs with one intended skip. Its 5/5 summary also had two duplicate unresolved reliability comments about the missing state assertions. This test-only follow-up addresses both. Fresh full CI and current-head review are required again. - The deterministic real-database regression failed before the correction. Both inserts reached the lock and exactly one active action persisted. The losing error was a `DrizzleQueryError` with a `PostgresError` cause, SQLSTATE `23505` and constraint `issue_recovery_actions_active_source_uq`. - **11 focused checks passed across two files on the integrated head** (181.72 seconds). This includes the real-database collision, no-retry controls and all four unchanged recovery producer/dependency regressions, including the original failed real-clock saved-debt case. Both callers return the one persisted action. - Current-head canonical server typecheck passed on Node24.22.2 with all seven layers: below, cycle, above, tests and test-tree-0 through test-tree-2. Canonical shared, SDK, DB and Runner TypeScript prerequisites passed. The first filtered installs lacked CLI and UI imports required by the new test layers. Those module-resolution failures remain recorded as setup failures. A full frozen workspace install with lifecycle scripts disabled supplied the same locked dependencies. No source or type-configuration workaround was used. No Rust or broad workspace build ran locally; full repository typecheck, tests and build remain hosted-CI gates. - The actual supporting master baseline reproduced the same wrapped23505 failure before the correction. Earlier configuration-resolution, local IPC and native-library prerequisites remain separate setup failure evidence. No test failure was reclassified as a pass. - First supporting CI `41739489620` was canceled before its build/test jobs completed. Its later automatic full-CI run `41739747947` failed. The recovery server shard passed. The Runner failure was the Cursor fixture case repaired upstream in #18782, now included by the normal master merge. That CI also observed an attachment-browser timeout, a repository-rehome timeout and a lost-runner connection. Their underlying causes remain unknown. A later pass will establish recovery, not explain those earlier failures. These original results remain retained. - Current `fbd392b9b65dbcf4ac078825096037ed0d490a0b` full CI [41751706634 attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41751706634/attempts/2) passed: 48 successful jobs and one intended skip. Attempt 1 remains retained: ten primary jobs lost their bound Spot capacity and the verify job failed as a dependent. A single ordinary failed-job recheck produced eleven fresh successful executions (ten primaries and verify); timestamps prove 37 successful executions were retained. The skip is not counted as execution. Current Greptile is 5/5 with both addressed reliability threads resolved and no unresolved findings. All 57 current check runs are successful, neutral or skipped, and Snyk is successful. This is CI recovery; it does not explain the separately retained older attachment and repository timeouts. - The original CI failure and both failed saved-skill QA attempts remain unchanged. This PR does not establish a live QA pass or deploy a production change. ## Risks Conflict classification must not turn unrelated errors into retries. The new controls require those errors to propagate after one insert attempt. The traversal is bounded and stops at cycles. Transaction, company scope, ownership, notifications, retry count and database constraints are unchanged. No schema or public API change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex with reasoning and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. These checks make no model or provider calls. ## 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>