mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
141b815294
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses adapter utilities to move bounded messages between agent processes. > - The duplex frame codec encodes and decodes these messages. > - The decoder rejects frames above the documented byte limit. > - The encoder did not apply the same limit before it sent a frame. > - This mismatch let a sender write a frame that the peer rejected after transmission. > - This pull request applies the same byte limit to both codec copies and keeps the broker channel open. > - The benefit is a local error with stable request telemetry instead of a channel loss. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The problem follows the bug report fields below. **What happened?** The duplex encoder could write a frame larger than `DEFAULT_MAX_DUPLEX_FRAME_BYTES`. The peer decoder then rejected the frame after transmission. In the WebSocket 1009 case, this closed the channel and reported a process exit. **Expected behavior** The encoder should reject an oversized frame before it writes bytes. The gateway should return HTTP 413. The broker should return a bounded terminal response and keep other requests active. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Encode a duplex frame above `DEFAULT_MAX_DUPLEX_FRAME_BYTES`. 2. Send the frame through the gateway or broker. 3. Observe that the old path writes the frame or drops the channel after peer rejection. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from the `master` development line before this change. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). ## What Changed - Add `encodeDuplexFrameChecked` to the host and embedded gateway codecs. - Measure encoded JSON bytes without the trailing newline. - Return a typed `frame_too_large` result without throwing. - Return HTTP 413 for oversized gateway requests without writing a frame. - Share one frame bound between broker decode and encode checks. - Return a bounded, non-retryable terminal response for oversized broker responses. - Add encode vectors to the shared wire-compatibility fixture. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`. - Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/duplex-frame-codec.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/duplex-bridge-broker.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`. - Confirm the oversized-response broker test keeps the channel open and serves the other in-flight request. - Confirm the gateway test returns HTTP 413 and keeps the channel open. ## Risks The encoder now rejects oversized frames before transmission. This changes an unsafe write into a typed local error. The broker and gateway keep existing frame limits and affect only oversized frames. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The model assisted with review and repository operations. ## 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>