mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
199670ba99
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native Runner commits usage receipts before it acknowledges retained events. > - Usage receipts and streamed run logs update the same run row. > - A repeatable-read snapshot can become stale before the receipt writer locks that row. > - Continuous log writes can exhaust all accounting retries and stall the retained event. > - This pull request uses the existing run lock with READ COMMITTED for standalone receipt writes. > - Other accounting operations keep their consistent snapshot. Stall diagnostics retain safe nested error codes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #20235. **What happened?** A hosted native run stopped on a retained usage event. Its diagnostic reported `Error at source seq N`. The saved outbox and accounting records locate the failing delivery boundary. Traces show repeated accounting transactions while streamed events still updated the run row. The historical inner exception is unavailable. A controlled PostgreSQL reproduction proves a matching defect: a run-log append after company validation makes the receipt writer's repeatable-read snapshot stale. Repeated appends exhaust all four retries with SQLSTATE `40001`. This is a demonstrated failure mechanism; attribution of the historical incident remains an inference. **Expected behavior** Commit the receipt under its existing run-row lock despite concurrent run-log writes. Observe concurrent finalization and preserve late-receipt debt. Keep duplicate receipts idempotent and reject conflicting or cross-company receipts. **Steps to reproduce** Run `server/src/services/usage-receipts-read.test.ts`. The concurrency regression uses real PostgreSQL and the production run-log append function. It commits a log append after company validation and before the receipt locks the run. Before the repair, the receipt rejects with a wrapped `40001` after four attempts. After the repair, it commits once. The finalization variant verifies that a newly settled run receives late-receipt debt without replacing settled state. ## What Changed - Allow aggregate-lock-protected accounting writers to select READ COMMITTED. Keep repeatable read as the default. - Use READ COMMITTED only for standalone usage receipt writes. Keep the existing run lock, immutable receipt journal, replay checks and transactional budget-work publication. - Add PostgreSQL regressions for concurrent log appends, concurrent finalization, duplicate delivery and the unchanged default snapshot. - Read the outer event-commit error and at most three nested causes for an existing safe error code. Exclude exception messages and SQL. - Document receipt isolation and bounded stall diagnostics. ## Verification - Red: the production receipt writer exhausted four retries with PostgreSQL `40001` under controlled concurrent run-log appends. - Red: wrapped database and transport stall diagnostics returned `Error` instead of `40001` and `ECONNRESET`. - Green: Runner control-plane tests passed all 207 cases. All 68 server assertions passed across receipt reads, native usage delivery and cost accounting. Cost-accounting teardown exceeded its 30-second limit twice on this loaded host, after all 28 assertions passed. The workspace project retained its configured 30-second hook limit despite the CLI override. This is a local suite cleanup failure, not a passing suite; the same revision passed the complete server suites in CI. - Server layered TypeScript checking passed, including source and test layers. Runner TypeScript checking passed. Server checks cover `ccfe3bdeb1ab88537a03fd6af9044f66863939a5`; the unchanged Runner checks cover its parent. - Local environment: macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0, disposable embedded PostgreSQL. Native usage-delivery tests use the real Rust receiver. - CI at `ccfe3bdeb1ab88537a03fd6af9044f66863939a5`: [build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42714760702/job/129493568428), [typecheck](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42714760702/job/129493568367), native Runner integration, browser shards and all nine serialized server groups passed. All 12 general server shards passed in the [full run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42714760702). Final rollup: 59 successful checks/statuses, three intentionally skipped checks, no pending or failed checks. - [Greptile reviewed this revision at 5/5 with no actionable findings](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20385#issuecomment-6753163397). - Hosted evidence came from the task, run, saved sandbox outbox, accounting receipts and traces. The run started fresh and did not cross a deployment. No original agent turn was replayed. - The hosted repair has not been deployed. The original task has not been resumed. A fixed-revision remote-provider user journey remains unverified. ## Risks - READ COMMITTED changes snapshot timing for standalone receipt writes. The run-row lock protects all mutable receipt/accounting reads and serializes competing receipts and finalization. Other accounting operations retain repeatable read. - Receipt identity, replay conflict checks, company scoping, budget publication, retry bounds and acknowledgement rules remain intact. - No persisted format, provider identity or database schema changes. Existing saved state needs no migration. - Diagnostics inspect at most four objects and retain only the existing identifier format, with an 80-character code limit. - The reproduced race matches the incident boundary and timing, but the original inner exception was not recorded. Rollout and live acceptance remain necessary before incident resolution. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code and shell tools. The exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## 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>