mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-10 20:50:08 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
1e81bd188b
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip stores heartbeat run ownership context so operators can
audit which user was responsible for agent work
> - A migration backfills missing heartbeat run `responsible_user_id`
values from issue references in each run's context snapshot
> - Some context snapshots can store issue identifiers as public ticket
strings rather than UUIDs
> - The migration needs to resolve both UUID issue ids and issue
identifiers without trying to cast identifier strings to UUID
> - This pull request tightens the migration query so UUID matching only
casts validated UUID-shaped values and identifier matching remains a
separate fallback
> - A companion repair migration is needed so installations that already
recorded `0130` still get the corrected heartbeat-run backfill
> - The benefit is that existing installations can apply the
responsible-user invariant migrations without failing on non-UUID issue
references and without leaving already-migrated databases unrepaired
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found in a quick search for this migration
failure.
Bug report context following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`:
**Pre-submission checklist**
- I searched existing open and closed issues and did not find a
duplicate.
- I can reproduce against current `master` plus the responsible-user
invariant migration path.
- The error originates in Paperclip's database migration, not in an
adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
**What happened?**
Applying the heartbeat run responsible-user backfill migration could
fail when `heartbeat_runs.context_snapshot->>'issueId'` or `taskId`
contained an issue identifier such as `PAP-123` instead of a UUID. The
migration attempted to use issue refs for UUID matching and identifier
fallback, but the UUID path needed to avoid casting non-UUID identifier
strings. Because `0130` may already have been applied in some
installations, a follow-up repair migration is needed as well.
**Expected behavior**
The migration should backfill from UUID issue ids when present, from
issue identifiers when present, and fall back to the company default
responsible user without unsafe UUID casts. Already-migrated
installations should receive the repaired heartbeat-run context-ref
backfill through a new migration.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use a migrated database with a company, issue, agent, and heartbeat
run.
2. Store a null `heartbeat_runs.responsible_user_id` and a
`context_snapshot` like `{"issueId":"PAP-123"}`.
3. Replay/apply the run responsible-user repair migration.
4. Observe that the migration must not cast `PAP-123` to UUID and should
backfill from the matching issue identifier.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` plus this migration fix branch.
**Deployment mode**
Database migration during server startup or explicit migration command.
**Installation method**
Built from source / self-hosted migration path.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific; core database migration bug.
**Database mode**
Postgres migration path, including embedded Postgres in development.
**Access context**
Not applicable; migration-time data backfill.
**Relevant logs or output**
Unsafe UUID casts can surface as Postgres invalid input syntax errors
when a context snapshot issue ref is an identifier rather than a UUID.
**Privacy checklist**
No private logs, paths, API keys, tokens, company names, or internal
Paperclip issue links are included.
## What Changed
- Split heartbeat run context issue reference extraction into reusable
CTEs.
- Only cast `issueId` / `taskId` values to UUID after a UUID-shape regex
check.
- Preserve fallback matching by issue identifier within the same
company.
- Keep deterministic candidate priority with `issueId` before `taskId`
and UUID matches before identifier matches.
- Added `0131_repair_run_responsible_user_context_refs.sql` so
installations that already applied `0130` still receive the corrected
heartbeat-run backfill.
- Added a DB migration regression test that replays the repair migration
with an identifier-style heartbeat run issue ref.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/client.test.ts`
- Isolated embedded Postgres migration run with a temporary
`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db migrate` applied all
pending migrations successfully.
- GitHub Actions PR workflow is green on commit
`1c2655bc457cef3716a43e66463e1e5bc2fdcfab`.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads on commit
`1c2655bc457cef3716a43e66463e1e5bc2fdcfab`.
- Searched for duplicate public issues/PRs with GitHub search; no direct
duplicate found.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` for overlap; no related roadmap item found.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium migration risk because this modifies an existing data
backfill migration and adds a companion repair migration.
- The query still relies on `context_snapshot` containing either issue
UUIDs or identifiers that match issues in the same company.
- Installations with unusual malformed context snapshots now skip unsafe
UUID casts and fall through to identifier/default backfill behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local command
execution.
## 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, or
confirmed no docs update is needed for this migration-only fix
- [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>