mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Devin FoleyandClaude
0dfa0fb988
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The PR verify workflow gates every pull request; its slowest check sets the feedback time for all contributors > - The general-server test lane splits its vitest suites across five runners with a duration-weighted partition (`scripts/general-server-shard.mjs`) > - The partition reads a duration manifest that was sampled on 2026-08-04, when the lane had 279 suites and 946s of serial time > - The lane has since grown to 405 suites and 1274s; 126 suites had no recorded duration and one suite grew from 37s to 123s > - The stale weights made the partition uneven: in the fully green actions run 32708351172, "General tests (server (2/5))" ran 364s and was the slowest check in the whole run, while sibling shards ran 292-330s > - This pull request refreshes the manifest with per-suite durations measured from that same run > - The benefit is a level five-shard split (255s ±1s of predicted suite time per shard), which removes ~50s from the slowest PR check ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the current behavior** In the fully green PR actions run [32708351172](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/32708351172) (2026-08-24), the check "General tests (server (2/5))" completed in 364s. Its test step ran 315s while sibling shards ran 241-276s. It was the slowest check in the run. **Describe the improvement** The duration manifest `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` is stale. It holds 279 suites sampled on 2026-08-04, but the lane now has 405 suites. The 126 unknown suites fall back to the median weight (~1.3s), and `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` grew from 37.4s to 123.3s. The partition therefore predicts a level split but produces an uneven one. Refreshing the manifest restores the level split without any code change. **Expected impact** All five server shards level at ~255s of predicted suite time (~310s job time). The slowest PR check drops from 364s to about 317s, so the PR critical path improves by roughly 50s. ## What Changed - Regenerated `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from actions run 32708351172 (2026-08-24): 405 suites, 1274s total serial time (was 279 suites, 946s from 2026-08-04) - Updated the `$comment` field to name the new sample run and date - No code changes; the partition logic in `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` is untouched ## Verification - Parsed all five "General tests (server (n/5))" job logs from run 32708351172 with the consecutive-completion-timestamp method described in the manifest `$comment`; asserted that the parsed suite set equals the exact file list that `run-vitest-stable.mjs` collects (405/405, no misses, no extras) - Ran `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-server --shard-index N --shard-count 5 --dry-run` for N=0..4 with the new manifest: each shard predicts 255s (±1s) of suite time, and the five shards form a complete, non-overlapping cover of all 405 suites - Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 13/13 pass ## Risks - Low risk. The change is data-only. Wrong weights cannot break correctness: the partition always covers every suite exactly once, so the worst case of a bad weight is an uneven shard, which is the current state. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, agentic coding session with tool use (Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK) ## 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 (no code change; existing partition tests pass) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (manifest `$comment` updated) - [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 Related prior work: #11528 (balanced the serialized server shards by recorded duration), #10923 (split serialized tests into five shards), #11156 (split workspaces-a into two shards). Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@paperclip.ing>