mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
4e27a82a42
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work and human decisions for AI-agent companies. > - Automatic decision queues store membership for pending attention sources. > - The old attention maintenance scan created that membership as a side effect. > - Moving approval retention out of the scan also removed approval queue discovery. > - Queue API consumers do not build the attention feed first, so they can miss pending PR approvals. > - This pull request gives approval queue discovery its own worker and commit signals. > - The worker becomes quiet after it saves every missing membership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17497. Stacked on #17508, following #17505. This is a correctness dependency for the approval retention migration in #17497. Do not treat that migration as complete without this queue-population path. A real PostgreSQL regression found no PR queue when a pending approval had a linked PR work product and the maintenance feed excluded approvals. Related: #13364 proposes pruning stale seeded memberships. This PR preserves existing membership retention and does not implement pruning. #15149 documents the decision-queue APIs. ## What Changed - Add an approval queue worker that selects missing PR-queue memberships from existing durable records. Bound each pass to 100 rows. Continue past failed rows and revisit them on retry. - Reuse the queue service's seed writer through a normalized source contract. Keep queue rules, uniqueness, and audit writes in that service. Keep feed readers compatible. - Wake from committed approval and link changes, issue/company visibility, PR work-product changes and imports, and queue-rule changes. Reuse the existing transaction boundaries. - Recheck approval status under a row lock. Serialize queue-rule changes with the seed writer. Preserve required recovery during drain and shutdown. - Register startup reconstruction under the existing maintenance switch. Leave other attention-source seeding with its current owner until its own migration. - Document the complete producer audit and stack dependency. Add a validated external PostgreSQL option to the existing queue route suite so it runs on hosts without embedded database support. ## Verification Current tested revision: `7948136ef8`. This PR targets master after #17508 merged as `8406047b4e`. Normal ancestry reconciliation preserved the complete tested integration tree, before the review repairs below. Only the original 25 seeding paths differ from master, and database schema/migration metadata is identical. - **56 cases pass in the three complete affected suites:** 28 approval seeding, 6 queue routes and 22 task-watchdog cases. Server typecheck and production build pass. - Three real PostgreSQL retry regressions failed then passed: new matching arrivals cannot postpone a recovered failure indefinitely; successful partial progress resets old failure penalties; an empty cursor rollover does not reset outage backoff. Exact one- and two-second retry assertions, eventual complete recovery and existing capped-backoff/company isolation tests pass. - Three genuinely empty external databases failed before setup repair because tables were missing. Each suite now applies migrations itself. All 55 cases passed on a second set of fresh databases; adding the final rollover guard then passed all 56 cases using those now-migrated fixtures. No production migration or table is added. - The initial expanded fresh run passed 54 cases but failed a cleanup expectation that omitted a required cursor rollover pass. The fixture now permits that explicit continuation while preserving exact deadline and complete-membership assertions. All failure records remain in `doc/idle-approval-queue-seeding.md`. - The prior integrated revision `4e725e2055` passed **522 cases in fifteen complete producer/consumer suites**, plus types/build. Its unchanged consumer code and historical deadlock, cross-company amplification, backoff, gateway integration and setup evidence remain documented; those counts are not relabeled as current acceptance. Commands: server Vitest for approval queue seeding, queue routes and task watchdogs; server typecheck/build. Fresh exact-head Greptile/Ponytail reviews and all CI checks remain required. No full local repository-suite, deployed suspension or cost claim is made. ## Risks - Signals cover the supported in-process service writers. Independent SQL writers and multiple server replicas need a separate notification contract. - The source predicate must stay aligned with unscoped attention maintenance. The first linked issue, company scope, pending status, and execution visibility are tested. A pending approval itself keeps its linked external conversation active. - Existing enabled seed rules can re-add manually removed matching memberships. This preserves the old scan's behavior. Completed or archived membership is not pruned. - Queue seeding and retention are separate owners. Other attention sources still need their own event-driven discovery before the aggregate scan can be retired. - This PR does not extend Cloud wake coverage, relax sleep admission, or claim measured host/database suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window were not exposed. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>