mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 14:19:00 +01:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
09412e652a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Warm Runner sessions park after a turn so follow-up tasks can claim the same process. > - Claude restarts its ACPX provider after the controller receives the terminal result. > - That restart can delay the drain receipt beyond the release path's one-second limit. > - A failed drain prevents parking, so the idle timer later closes the retained Runner. > - This pull request uses the existing warm admission budget for release drain. > - The benefit is retained Runner reuse without moving provider restart onto task dispatch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #20225. Refs #20190 and #20145. Related performance follow-up: #20224. ## What Changed - Align the release drain timeout with the existing 30-second warm admission budget for every provider. Close paths keep their explicit remaining deadlines. - Keep the existing immediate completion when the drain receipt proves settlement. Add no sleep, retry, provider branch or dispatch work. - Add a real Runner regression with a fake ACPX sidecar whose replacement start takes 1.5 seconds. One release call must park the Runner, then a follow-up must claim the same Runner process. - Document the release drain budget. ## Verification - Targeted command in `packages/paperclip-runner`: `vitest run src/live/runnerd-codex-transport-release-resume.test.ts src/live/runnerd-codex-transport-settlement.test.ts src/live/runnerd-codex-transport-deadlines.test.ts`: **46 passed** across 3 files, 157.78 seconds. - Independent parent verification reran the slow-restart and ordinary cached cases: **2 passed**. Source review confirmed that release is the only caller using the changed default; close callers supply explicit deadlines. - Negative control: with the original one-second timeout, the new test fails because the single release call returns `false`. The fixed code passes the new case. - Built only the current-source Runner and two fixture binaries required by these tests. The first sandboxed invocation could not bind its loopback listener (`EPERM`); the test ran with loopback access afterward. - Full GitHub PR workflow [42644210993](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42644210993) passed on head `9cfda0927b514d8d40443b612afa92525b35b700`. Standard Greptile scored this same head 5/5 with no review threads. Full repository checks ran in GitHub CI, per the requested local test scope. No live Claude session or hosted deployment was tested. ## Risks - An unresponsive Runner can now hold release drain for up to the existing 30-second warm admission limit. A healthy Runner returns as soon as its receipt arrives. The provider restart stays at turn end; task dispatch gets no fixed delay. - Saved state, protocol and provider identity formats do not change. Previous-release state carries forward under the existing validation. - The controlled fake-sidecar test proves the restart timing race and process reuse. It does not qualify live provider latency or a hosted rollout. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code editing and targeted test execution. The exact serving revision and context window 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>