mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
15249a689d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and saves provider sessions between turns. > - Session and workspace compatibility include the selected environment revision. > - The managed sandbox reconciler also updates names, descriptions, and stock metadata. > - Those cosmetic updates advanced the revision even when the execution configuration stayed the same. > - A later turn therefore discarded an otherwise compatible saved session. > - This pull request keeps that revision stable for cosmetic reconciliation and retains resets for real configuration changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #18943 and #18552. **What happened?** A managed sandbox rename or description update made a later task turn start a fresh provider session. The driver, provider, snapshot, and agent configuration could all remain unchanged. Both session and workspace freshness use the environment's `updatedAt` as its configuration revision. **Expected behavior** Cosmetic managed reconciliation preserves compatible task sessions. Actual sandbox configuration or availability changes retain the normal replacement checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a managed sandbox and save a task-session fingerprint for it. 2. Reconcile the same sandbox configuration with a new name, description, or managed metadata. 3. Evaluate the saved session against that environment. Before this fix, the decision resets the session and reports the environment category. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `d3713d827f70ddba63a323e57c562384dbd648ba`. **Deployment mode** Managed sandbox server. The regression uses an isolated PostgreSQL database and the actual reconciler and session-freshness resolver. ## What Changed - Keep the existing revision for an active managed sandbox when its execution configuration stays equal. - Continue advancing the revision when configuration or availability changes. - Retain activity records and managed-stock binding updates for cosmetic reconciliation. - Add a regression that checks session reuse, audit history, and rejection after a real snapshot change. - Document the freshness contract. ## Verification - The new PostgreSQL regression failed before the production change: it reported `reset: true` and changed category `environment`. - All 53 environment-service cases pass after the fix. - All 190 session-freshness and assembled heartbeat session-preparation cases pass. - Full local typecheck passes. The full local Vitest run remains active, with its local build queued afterward. Initial typecheck setup failures were retained and resolved by repairing generated SDK links; no source workaround was added. - [Full current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42114984839) passes, including the sharded test suites and build: 55 successful checks, 3 skipped, and 1 neutral. - Greptile and Ponytail both reviewed this commit at 5/5 with no findings. No review threads remain unresolved. - Deployed verification remains pending normal delivery. No pinned release or manual rollout is required. ## Risks - Cosmetic managed reconciliation keeps `environments.updatedAt` unchanged, so it does not reorder that environment by this timestamp. Activity records and managed-resource bindings still record the update. - The comparison uses canonical configuration hashes, so JSON property order cannot hide a real change or create false drift. - Existing fingerprint formats and saved session records remain compatible. Real configuration and availability changes still advance the revision. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex desktop, with reasoning and terminal/browser tools. The host does not expose a more specific deployment suffix or context-window size. ## 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>