mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
0b65926822
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Follow-up runs restore saved sessions when execution configuration is unchanged. > - A project can inherit workspace policy from its storage plugin. > - The initial run resolves those defaults before it binds a workspace. > - The first bound follow-up skipped that resolution and changed the session fingerprint. > - This pull request resolves the same effective policy before and after binding. > - Unchanged follow-ups keep their saved session and workspace. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A repository-backed project with no explicit workspace policy inherits an isolated Git worktree policy from its storage plugin. After the first run binds a workspace, the next run parsed only the raw project policy. It dropped the inherited provider and strategy fields. Core treated this representation change as a `workspaceConfig` change and discarded the saved session, although the workspace had not changed. **Expected behavior** Binding a workspace must not change the effective project policy. Real policy changes must still invalidate session compatibility. The workspace must keep its recorded storage owner. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a default project storage plugin with isolated Git worktrees. 2. Create a project with a repository and no explicit workspace policy. 3. Run a task, then submit its first follow-up. 4. Observe a session reset for `workspaceConfig` despite an unchanged workspace. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `50b932a142216331b8d476042b454bc123739c40`. Related: #17447 fixed the separate source-free project case. A duplicate PR search found no matching repository-backed fix. ## What Changed - Resolve effective project policy for bound repository-backed workspaces through the same company-scoped resolver as initial admission. The source-free project guard remains. - Add a PostgreSQL heartbeat regression covering initial binding, two follow-ups, a real policy change, and retained provider ownership. - Settle the synthetic adapter fixture as Done and reopen each explicit follow-up. This prevents an automatic review-path recovery from hiding the first bound admission. - Add the verification recipe to the session feature map. ## Verification - The new regression fails before the production change: the first explicit follow-up receives `sessionId: null` instead of the saved session. - All six tests in `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-session-preparation.test.ts` pass after the fix. - A targeted run across that file and `project-workspace-provider.integration.test.ts` passed 17 cases, including inherited policy, model changes, incompatible explicit policy, provider availability, no fallback after disablement, and retained local/plugin ownership. - Commands: from `server/`, `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/__tests__/heartbeat-session-preparation.test.ts`; targeted controls used the same runner with `-t 'inherited|effective model|retains both plugin and local workspace ownership|never falls back|unavailable|explicit settings|compatible explicit'`. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Initial fixture attempts hit source-binding, provider-execution, missing working-directory, and branch-inspection guards. The fixture was corrected; those guards remain unchanged. An automatic review recovery also hid the initial transition until fixture settlement was corrected. - Tests use real PostgreSQL, real policy resolution, and heartbeat persistence. Provider execution is synthetic; a temporary local working directory replaces environment realization for the test adapter. - Current head `4d21b5180960659576e5950e906056fa4dabb54c` removes two comments after standard review; executable code is unchanged from the locally verified commit. Standard Greptile scores this head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. GitHub CI is now green on this head: 54 successful checks and two intentional Storybook skips. Standard Greptile and Apex both score this head 5/5. Apex found no actionable issues; no unresolved threads or merge conflicts remain. - CI job [workspaces-b](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40564712367/job/122406649223) was interrupted by a runner shutdown signal at 19:09:39 UTC. Its available log shows no test assertion failure; completed groups passed. The serialized server shard [1/9](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40564712367/job/122406648374) also received a runner shutdown at 19:12:03 UTC; its final test summary reports 532 passing tests and no failed assertion. Both interrupted jobs passed in the failed-jobs-only rerun, and the final verify aggregate passed. The first retry request was rejected while the containing run was still active; it was accepted after the other jobs settled. - Local verification is targeted as requested. Full test, build, and typecheck coverage is delegated to GitHub CI. No live deployment or latency claim is made. ## Risks Bound repository runs now read the current storage-plugin defaults through one provider-list query. An ambiguous or incompatible effective policy can fail admission instead of being skipped. Existing plugin preparation still uses the recorded workspace owner, so a changed default does not move existing storage to another provider. Explicit policy changes still rotate the session. No schema or API changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, using repository inspection, code editing, shell tools, and targeted test execution. The exact serving model ID 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 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>