mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
0cb9770d1c
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environment leases carry several in-progress records: login/probe leases and in-flight teardown claims among them > - The ownership reconciler (durable ownership plan, Phase 2) must know who owns each record, or invariant I1 reports a gap > - The ownership data showed one teardown claim and one login/probe lease with no owner stamp > - A teardown claim could also show the wrong owner: a controller stamp left by an earlier attempt named a dead process while a live claimant held the claim > - This pull request names an honest owner for both kinds, without a new write before `turn.start` > - The benefit is that I1 measures real gaps, and the later settle for these kinds can trust the owner it is given ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19964 Refs #19933 **What happened?** The ownership reconciler reported `environment_teardown_claim` and `environment_login_probe_lease` records as I1 `no_owner_stamp`. Workspace recovery and native export retry claim teardown without a controller stamp. A login/probe lease never had an owner stamp. A teardown claim that kept an older attempt's controller stamp was attributed to that older process. **Expected behavior** Each in-progress record names the owner that can still move it: a process proved by identity, or a fence whose expiry is never proof by itself. A stamp for a different attempt never names the owner. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let workspace recovery claim a pending-cleanup lease (no controller stamp), or open a login session lease. 2. Run the ownership reconciliation pass. 3. See `no_owner_stamp` for the record, or a dead earlier controller for a claim that a live claimant holds. ## What Changed - `recovery/ownership-registry.ts`, `environment_login_probe_lease`: the owner is the holder process stamped by the write that makes the lease active (`metadata.leaseController`, added in #19964). A lease saved by the previous release still names no owner; it ends with its login session. - `recovery/ownership-registry.ts`, `environment_teardown_claim`: a controller stamp counts only when its `attemptId` equals the claim's `pendingCleanupAttemptId`. Any other claim with an attempt id is a fence: the attempt id is the token and `pendingCleanupLeaseExpiresAtMs` (renewed by the claimant) is the expiry. An expired fence stays unprovable. A claim with no attempt id names no owner. - Report-only. No settle is registered for these kinds in this change. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/environment-lease-owner-stamps.test.ts src/__tests__/ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts` (embedded Postgres). - Red on the previous registry, green here (tests written after the code): - login/probe lease is owned by the process whose write made it active - login/probe lease is proven gone when that process has exited - teardown claim never reads a controller stamped for an earlier attempt (fence held by its token) - an unstamped teardown claim whose fence expired stays unprovable, never gone - Green on both: a stamped claim for this attempt with a dead PID is gone; an unstamped login lease and an attempt-less claim report I1. - Full typecheck is left to CI (local memory limit). ## Risks - Low risk. The change only alters the owner the report-only reconciler reads. No record is changed. - Stacked on #19964 (the lease holder stamp). Merge #19964 first. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, embedded Postgres tests). ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>