mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 23:43:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
1d348bbef0
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A replacement web server restores agent files from shared storage. > - The old restore reads each object in sequence. > - Modest network latency makes a 1,024-file folder exceed its deadline. > - This pull request uses at most eight concurrent restore streams. > - Every file must pass its size and hash checks before the folder is published. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18518 and #18526. Local deployment qualification found that a 64 MiB folder could not be restored after the old server filesystem was removed. ## What Changed - Restore at most eight files concurrently within the existing file authority service. - Cancel sibling transfers on failure. Await all workers before removing the temporary folder. - Keep the existing deadline, file-transfer database pool, authorization and publication rules. - Add regression coverage for bounded concurrency, corruption, settled cancellation, retained previous bytes and retry. - Document the behavior and update the deployment plan with local qualification evidence. ## Verification - Real PostgreSQL and S3-compatible storage: 1,024 files of 64 KiB each, plus instructions, with 25 ms added to each object GET. Delete the entire predecessor home and disable local adoption before reading through the successor. - Before: the read failed after 30.065 seconds. After: the same case passed in 4.180 seconds and fetched 1,025 objects. All owned test resources were cleaned. - The durable-file suite passed eight tests against PostgreSQL. Server TypeScript compilation passed. All 56 latest-head CI checks are complete and green or intentionally skipped, including full typecheck, build, unit and browser suites. Greptile is 5/5 with no review findings or open threads. - The plan separately records a released-container overlap proof: 130 reads, 26 saves, zero failures, two deleted predecessor containers and a retained authenticated session. That image predates this restore change. ## Risks - A cold folder can use eight simultaneous streams instead of one. Two file-transfer database connections bound the simultaneous restore callers. Streams verify bytes without loading entire objects into memory. - The 30-second deadline is unchanged. The measured size and latency do not qualify every folder at the maximum storage limits. - No schema, API or UI changes. Paid-model and hosted deployment acceptance remain separate work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Tool use, code execution and repository review. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID 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>