mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-25 09:41:04 +01:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
0c3b5ce273
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Sandbox execution selects a provider from installed plugin manifests. > - Driver-key lookup reads every plugin row before it finds a matching declaration. > - Repeated lookups transfer manifests for unrelated plugins. > - The registry owns this database read and can filter candidates before returning rows. > - This pull request adds that filter and keeps the existing provider selection checks. > - The returned data now grows with matching providers instead of the full catalog. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** `resolvePluginSandboxProviderDriverByKey` calls the unfiltered registry catalog on each lookup. The caller only needs plugins with a sandbox-provider declaration for one driver key. Unrelated plugin manifests still cross the database connection and are decoded in the server. **Proposed solution** Add an optional sandbox-provider driver-key filter to `pluginRegistryService().list`. Match the key and kind on the same JSON declaration in Postgres. Pass the key from the existing resolver. Keep full matching rows, install order, status checks and worker checks. **Alternatives considered** A catalog cache would need an invalidation contract for plugin updates and independent writers. This change keeps fresh database reads. Returning only one SQL row could skip a later eligible provider when an earlier worker is unavailable. The filter therefore keeps all matching candidates. **Roadmap alignment** This is a small performance fix to existing plugin execution. It adds no product feature or provider. Searches for sandbox/driver lookup and plugin catalog/filter work found no duplicate PR or issue. ## What Changed - Add an optional JSONB containment filter to the existing registry list read. - Use it in sandbox-provider lookup by driver key. The unfiltered catalog call keeps its existing behavior. - Add real-Postgres regression coverage and a short developer note. ## Verification - Four focused provider-selection/recovery/seam suites passed: 27 tests. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - The new Postgres tests seed large unrelated manifests and verify the actual resolver SQL filters rows in the database. They cover key/kind matching within one declaration, unfiltered reads, install order, disabled and unavailable workers, live status/declaration changes, unknown keys and bound unusual input. - The filter keeps the existing SQL call count. It does not add a network call, cache, timer, or background worker. - `git diff --check`: passed. Reviewed the staged diff for secrets and private account data before push. - Full PR CI passed on `6f97c984a931416b6347e9885d840557c54d8aab`: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. [Workflow evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40041294925). - Apex review: 5/5 on that exact head, completed cleanly, with no comments or unresolved threads. Merge state is clean. - The prior local full run on parent work is documented in #17384. It did not pass because of test setup, host Git-default assumptions and transient failures. Those results were preserved and triaged against unchanged code. This change uses focused local checks and full current-head CI; no new local full-suite pass is claimed. - No hosted user journey, live provider throughput, production deployment or billed savings is claimed. ## Risks - JSONB containment checks the stored manifest before returning rows. It still scans candidate metadata in the database; no index or SQL-call reduction is claimed. - Both key and kind must match the same declaration. The regression fixture includes a plugin with those values on different declarations. - Selection still uses the existing install-order and live readiness/worker checks. Matching disabled records remain visible to callers that do not require a running worker. - No schema, API response, provider protocol, file-copy behavior or scheduling changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. ## 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>