mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
06c0566a08
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task Retry stores a durable request before it starts a new run. > - An automatic attempt can stop at the execution gate before a provider starts. > - That cancelled attempt becomes the source of the next Retry click. > - Admission rejected that source, or chose an older run that did not match the stored Retry authority. > - This pull request verifies the refused attempt and keeps it as the exact authority source. > - The user can start one new turn after the older execution holds pass their existing checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Retry can remain deferred when the latest run was cancelled with `execution_reconciliation_required` before dispatch. An older failed preparation has an execution recovery hold. The Retry receipt names the cancelled child, but admission only accepts a failed preparation as an extra source. It can also choose the older run as `previousRunId`, which fails the exact source check at dispatch. **Expected behavior** Retry starts one new turn when the latest attempt has a verified pre-dispatch refusal and every older execution hold is ready. Provider activity, retained execution resources, missing receipts, or a live earlier process keep the hold. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seed a failed native preparation and its recovery hold. 2. Let a later automatic attempt be cancelled by the stale queued execution gate before dispatch. 3. Click Retry against that latest cancelled attempt. 4. Before this change, continuation admission returns no receipt. After this change, one successor starts with authority bound to the clicked attempt. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `2f35eb1080`. Rebased onto `6cafcaf89b` for submission. **Deployment mode** Local source checkout with embedded PostgreSQL and the native Runner on macOS arm64. Refs #15383 and #16939. Those changes cover legacy conversation cancellation and queue promotion. This change covers the exact source of a task Retry receipt after a gate refused its automatic child. ## What Changed - Reuse the existing database-backed pre-dispatch refusal proof when admitting the exact Retry source. - Keep the clicked source as `previousRunId`. Continue to check every older execution hold. - Add database regressions for safe refusal, unsafe evidence, concurrent dispatch, and duplicate clicks. - Add an opt-in acceptance test that drives the authenticated Retry route through a real Codex turn and task finalization. - Document the admission contract. ## Verification - TDD: the new database regression returned `null` on the original code. It passes with the repair. - Final head `c43a84b1bf`: 487 tests pass across task Retry, explicit native continuation, and execution continuation. Server TypeScript and module boundary checks pass. - Live acceptance: `PAPERCLIP_LIVE_REFUSED_RETRY=true PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY=<current-source-runnerd> pnpm --dir server exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/services/native-runtime/refused-task-retry.live.test.ts`. - The real HTTP request returned 202 on the final rebased head `c43a84b1bf`. Codex `gpt-6.1-sol` with high effort produced the requested file. The task became done, both task locks cleared, and finalization committed. A repeated click reused the same receipt and did not create another run. The source file stayed unchanged. - Server TypeScript check and module boundary check. - `pnpm verify --explain` returned 2 because the execution contract doc requires broad CI coverage. The required CI checks supply that coverage. ## Risks This changes execution admission. The existing proof requires the stored refusal receipt and no provider work or retained execution resources. Earlier recovery holds, process stop checks, decisions, actor authority, and task ownership still apply. No schema change or migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The host does not expose an exact author model ID or context window. The live acceptance provider was `gpt-6.1-sol` with high reasoning effort. ## 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 — all GitHub Actions checks pass on `c43a84b1bf`; Paperclip Review completed at 5/5 with no findings (neutral check conclusion). - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — reviewed `c43a84b1bf` with no actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>