mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
0710c56842
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the work they receive. > - Connected conversations save incoming requests before they can run. > - A request can remain queued when the previous turn finishes successfully. > - Task Retry sent that case through the failed-run retry guard, which rejected the successful run. > - This change resumes the saved request through its existing admission owner. > - The operator can continue saved work while preserving the prior result and current permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Task Retry returned a conflict for a restricted connected conversation when its latest run succeeded and newer input remained saved. A GitHub review can reach this state when a new PR head arrives during the previous review. The prior review cannot publish against the new head, but its completed turn is not a failed run that can be replayed. **Expected behavior** Retry should resume the saved request with its original source identity and current authorization. It must preserve the previous successful result and must not replay that turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a review through a restricted GitHub endpoint. 2. Send a PR synchronize event while that review runs and retain its deferred input receipt. 3. Let the original run finish successfully with the task still open. 4. Click Retry. Before this change, the failed-run guard rejects the request. With this change, the saved input creates one successor through normal admission. Related work: #17725, #16965, #15033. ## What Changed - Select the newest saved input by its canonical chat action and wake receipt. - Store its receipt ID in the task retry intent and resume it through the existing chat owner. - Preserve caller permissions, source authorization, task state, agent state, cleanup waits, and duplicate-click handling. - Exclude saved-input intents from generic board-message replay. Keep board messages in separate queued receipts and allow independently saved input after successful board turns. - Add signed webhook, HTTP endpoint, accepted-result preservation, and refusal tests. Update execution semantics and capability maps. Stabilize the existing Teams lifecycle test with explicit database result ordering. ## Verification - Current-head [CI passes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41482727909): 54 successful checks, one neutral review, three expected skips, and a successful Snyk status. Greptile gives commit `53f02e9105` 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Reproduced the original HTTP 409 before the fix. Reproduced both review findings with three failing cases before fixing them. - Passed 25 focused and related GitHub retry cases, 52 ordinary queue tests, and three native startup cases against disposable PostgreSQL. Earlier related verification also passed 83 GitHub retry cases and 109 recovery/receipt cases. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and the module boundary check. The final server typecheck passed after the review fixes. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt stopped on an existing Slack queue deadline assertion with a 1 ms database/host clock difference. That case passed in isolation. A second attempt was stopped when review changes superseded its source. Full local completion is not claimed; all chat, server, browser, build, and runner CI jobs passed on the final commit. - The runner CI job needed one rerun after a two-second startup timing assertion failed. That case and its two related cases passed locally; the rerun passed without code changes. - Live GitHub review publication with this patch is not verified. The signed provider fixture uses mocked GitHub responses. This branch is not deployed. ## Risks - This changes how Retry dispatches deferred external input after a successful run. It relies on the existing inbound owner to recheck source authority before execution. - Tests cover paused connections and agents, changed source bindings, completed tasks, pending cleanup, duplicate clicks, and preservation of the accepted result. - No schema migration or public API shape change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>