mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-19 10:36:26 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
250429942e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - New agents must pass setup and execution checks before they can run. > - The lifecycle worker saved the same retry message for every failure. > - Users could not identify the failed step or correct its configuration. > - The UI also described failed work as work still in progress. > - This pull request names the failed step and gives a safe corrective action. > - Users can identify configuration problems and understand automatic retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A new hire showed a paused status and “The lifecycle step failed. Retry the operation.” Repeated retries did not explain the failure. A successful retry cleared the original error. This change cannot recover an error that an older server already cleared. **Expected behavior** Name the failed setup step. Give a useful action for known execution test failures. Explain automatic retry. Keep provider output and credentials out of lifecycle errors. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a disposable agent with an unavailable model or invalid execution command. 2. Open its profile while verification fails. 3. Inspect the error, correct the configuration, and select Retry now. 4. Confirm that the failure disappears after the agent becomes ready. Related change: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16155 shows pending setup progress in creation and assignment. This change improves the cause and action shown when setup fails. ## What Changed - Save the failed lifecycle phase and step in the existing lifecycle error field. - Classify authentication, model, command, directory, timeout, and response failures from execution test check codes. - Use fixed error messages. Do not retain raw provider messages, check details, or credentials. - Share the allowed failure codes with the lifecycle log. - Show failed-state labels and automatic retry guidance. Rename Retry to Retry now. - Extend worker, database, and UI regression coverage. Update the agent verification maps. ## Verification - Passed 105 focused tests across lifecycle diagnostics, database lifecycle commands, saved harness verification, and AgentLifecycleStatus. - Passed server TypeScript compilation with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - Passed UI typecheck and production build. - Passed module boundary checks, token gates, character sync, map validation, and `git diff --check`. - Used Playwright to inspect the production component with a simulated model failure. Confirmed the failure text, retry guidance, retry callback, and recovered state. Captured a screenshot. This component check does not prove a live provider run. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Both require Rust cargo, which is not installed in the local execution environment. - Started `pnpm test:run` locally. No final local suite result was recorded before handoff. The complete PR CI workflow passed. - Passed all latest-commit CI gates, including typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Rust checks, and all eight browser test shards: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38726198774 - Greptile scored the latest commit 5/5 with no findings. There are no review threads to resolve. ## Risks - Failure classification depends on existing adapter check codes. Unknown codes use a safe fallback message. - A known code can describe only the checks reported by the adapter. - No database migration is required. The error field remains a string. - Retry schedules, leases, readiness, approvals, and budget controls keep their current behavior. - Full build verification requires a runner with Rust cargo. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, code editing, browser checks, and tool execution. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. ## 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>