mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 21:03:51 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
8f478242f1
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent adapters use execution targets to exchange input and output with sandbox processes > - The sandbox input path can expose partial files, and the poller can delete or stop on invalid input > - These timing windows can lose agent input without a clear error > - This pull request makes host writes atomic and makes the poller retry invalid files before it drops them > - The benefit is reliable sandbox input delivery with visible failure after bounded retries ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Closes #10874 ## What Changed - Decode host input into a temporary file, then rename it onto the final JSON path. - Apply the same atomic write pattern to the filesystem client. - Parse each input file before deletion. - Retry parse failures and drop a file after the bounded retry limit with an error event. - Add regression tests for empty, partial, and permanently malformed input files. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-stdin-race.test.ts` passes 5/5 tests. - Related sandbox callback, execution target, and sandbox execution suites pass 71/71 tests. - TypeScript checks pass for the changed files. - The regression suite fails on the old code and passes on this change. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects sandbox input file handling and adds bounded retry behavior. - A permanently malformed file now creates an error event after the retry limit. > This bug fix does not add a core feature, so a roadmap change is not needed. ## Model Used Codex, OpenAI GPT-5, current agent runtime, large context window, tool use and code review support. ## 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>