mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
0ccba45e4d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so runtime handoffs have to preserve the exact behavior an agent asked for. > - The sandbox-provider layer is where uploaded files and follow-up commands become a real in-sandbox operation. > - The provider-delegable sync-in seam already exists from the prior PR; without this follow-up, native providers can still accept command-bearing uploads and silently drop the commands. > - That is a fail-open gap for native sandbox providers, because the file transfer succeeds while the intended post-upload work never runs. > - This pull request teaches Daytona and Kubernetes to execute `postUploadCommands` in order, inside the sandbox, after the files land. > - The benefit is consistent and safer sync semantics: native providers either run the commands as requested or fail fast instead of pretending the operation completed fully. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This PR builds on the previously merged provider-delegable sync-in seam and closes the remaining gap for native providers that still dropped `postUploadCommands`. Problem: - A sync operation could include ordered `postUploadCommands`, but a native provider could finish the file upload and skip the commands entirely. - That creates fail-open behavior for command-bearing uploads, especially when the caller relies on the provider to execute the follow-up action in the sandbox. Proposed fix: - Execute `postUploadCommands` inside the sandbox after file placement. - Preserve the provided command order. - Fail fast on the first non-zero exit or timeout. - Keep command execution verbatim and confine any provided `cwd` under the workspace root. Related public PR: - Refs: #10340 ## What Changed - Daytona `performSyncIn` now executes ordered `postUploadCommands` through the existing `executeCommand` seam. - Kubernetes `performSyncIn` now executes ordered `postUploadCommands` through its streaming pod exec path. - Added workspace confinement for provided `cwd` values and defaulted missing `cwd` to the remote root. - Added tests covering the new post-upload command execution behavior in both provider packages. ## Verification - Latest validation recorded on the handoff branch: `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` and `@paperclipai/plugin-kubernetes` typechecks passed. - Daytona Vitest: `63/63` passing in `plugin.test.ts`. - Kubernetes Vitest: `195/195` passing, including `file-sync.test.ts`. - `git log --oneline origin/master..HEAD` showed a single expected commit on the branch. ## Risks - Command execution semantics are stricter now, so malformed commands or a bad `cwd` will fail the sync instead of being ignored. - The change makes provider behavior more explicit, which can surface previously hidden failures in callers that assumed commands were optional. - Timeout behavior may differ slightly between providers, so the failure mode is intentionally fail-fast. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use enabled. ## 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>