mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
140fcf98ed
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task interrupted by a restart or deploy must resume automatically, or offer a Retry that works on first use > - A board Retry saves an intent first. Dispatch then rechecks the requester's authority and saved source before it starts a run > - When that recheck refused the intent, dispatch returned a bare "deferred". The intent stayed saved with no reason, and the task still showed Retry > - Each later click with a new key joined that same intent, so Retry returned 202 and never started a run > - This pull request names the refusal on the intent and lets a new click replace an intent that can never start > - The benefit is that a Retry button that is shown starts one run, or explains why it cannot ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native task in a managed sandbox lost its runner twice. Saved-work recovery recovered the files. The task showed "Saved work recovered. Retry or send a message to continue." and `canRetry: true`. A Retry click returned 202 and logged `issue.retry_requested`, but no run started. A second click with a new idempotency key returned the same request ID and `state: failed`. No run started. **Expected behavior** If Retry is offered, a click starts exactly one run. If the Retry cannot start, the task names the reason, and a later click is a fresh attempt. A Retry accepted during the pre-deploy drain starts after the restart. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Recover the files of a failed native run so the hold offers Retry. 2. Save a Retry intent whose dispatch-time authority recheck fails (for example, the requester lost access). 3. Dispatch it: no run starts, and the intent has no wait reason. 4. Click Retry again with a new key: the response returns the first request ID, and no run starts. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `b400914345` (staging served `4d49a31286`; the affected code is the same). Related: #19399 (automatic Retry after a lost runner), #19422. ## What Changed - `heartbeat/queue.ts`: when dispatch declines a task Retry because the requester can no longer change the task, or its saved board message changed, record a named wait (`retry_authority_denied`, `retry_source_changed`) and log it. Before, it returned "deferred" with no record. - `task-retry.ts`: a new click with a new key replaces an unadmitted intent that dispatch declined for its requester's access (`retry_authority_denied`). The old intent becomes `skipped` / `task_retry_replaced`, and activity records `replacedRequestId`. Waits on shared state (cleanup, recovery, an active run, preservation) still coalesce. The restart hook never replaces a user's click. Chat-owned intents keep their own owner. - `task-interruption-presentation.ts`: fixed public messages for the two new wait reasons. `retry_authority_denied` keeps Retry, because a new click is a fresh attempt. `retry_source_changed` is terminal: an edited saved message cannot be replayed, so Retry is hidden and the user sends a new message. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the rule. ## Verification - New regressions in `server/src/services/workspace-recovery.test.ts` use the real recovery, Retry and dispatch services on embedded Postgres. The fixture runs the automatic Retry from a lost runner, then that Retry's own run loses its runner, and recovery saves its files: - `starts exactly one run when Retry is pressed after the automatic Retry's own run lost its runner` (also checks that a replayed dispatch and a second click start no second run). - `does not let a Retry that could not start swallow a later Retry`: red before the fix in two steps. With no fix, the declined intent has no wait reason. With only the wait fix, the second click returned the first request ID. Green after the fix: one run, bound to the second click. - `dispatches a Retry accepted during the pre-deploy drain once the restarted server resumes`: green before and after. The drain does not lose a saved Retry. - `npx vitest run src/services/workspace-recovery.test.ts src/services/task-retry.test.ts src/services/task-interruption-presentation.test.ts src/services/quarantined-task-retry.test.ts src/services/explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`: 892 passed. - Not verified on staging. After deploy, an intent that dispatch refuses shows a named `retryWait` reason. ## Risks - Low risk. Only intents that dispatch declined for their requester's access are replaced. All other coalescing stays. - A replaced intent's late dispatch finds it `skipped` and starts nothing, so a double click still starts at most one run. - The exact gate that held the staging intent is not confirmed from records. If it was a shared-state wait, the new code names it only if it is one of the two reasons above. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local test runs). ## 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>