mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
74a9730acb
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat uses native workers to run Claude and Codex conversations. > - A worker crash leaves a cleanup hold because its provider did not acknowledge suspension. > - A new user message must not reuse that unverified session or repeat old tool calls. > - The existing continuation path can preserve history and start a fresh session, but local cleanup ownership remained held. > - This pull request verifies the stopped local owners and releases only their cleanup hold for a new user turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13775. **What happened?** After a native worker crashed, both providers retained cleanup quarantine. A saved plan survived, but the conversation could not produce another answer. **Expected behavior** Once the old worker and provider process groups have stopped, a new user message can continue in a fresh session with the saved work and prior action history. **Steps to reproduce** Run the opt-in `agent-chat-qualification` suite with case `worker-crash-retry` on native Codex and native Claude. The fixture saves a plan, kills the exact worker through a Linux pidfd, releases a local read-only brief, and sends a new message. ## What Changed - Verify the exact local worker stop receipt, provider identity receipts, released leases, and retained state before retiring a native cleanup hold. - Recheck process liveness and state before admission. Keep the old run and durable session files intact. - Use the existing explicit conversation continuation path. Generic Retry remains blocked for cleanup quarantine, including on the old failed-run marker after a successful continuation. - Extend the live oracle to require a successful fresh session, correct predecessor context, unchanged plan, one original message, and one answer containing a reference introduced after the crash. - Add physical-proof and database-backed admission tests. Document the precise qualification scope. ## Verification - Live Product E2E: **2/2 passed**, **2/2 cleanup passed**, with real native `gpt-5.6-sol` and `claude-sonnet-5`, Chromium, server, database, and public APIs. - Core recovery proof source: `3592b04c2bc76e23795fcdf964720e38a409dc4d`. Suite definition version 8: `9867367994d81a0c726956d91f2c7fddab6417a12f41b5cef3f7e62f3be417da`. - [Core recovery campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35741746990) · [Public evidence report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35741746990-1/). - Both cells verify the real crash boundary, blocked generic Retry, unchanged saved plan, one original prompt, one fresh successor with predecessor context, and one run-attributed answer containing the post-crash reference. Billing coverage is partial because the crashed runs did not report complete usage; missing cost is not zero cost. - [Master baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35737364443): both providers stopped at quarantine, with cleanup passing. - [Follow-up baseline without the fix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35738638866): Codex produced a complete red result. Claude reached the same error, but its artifact upload was canceled. - [Complete Claude baseline with the same version-8 definition](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35740555177): red at cleanup quarantine, cleanup passed, source `6479a90c5754044356b39a9278b9a3e92ce8e55e`. - Earlier candidate attempts remain retained: [first](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35738449214) passed Codex and found a Claude fixture wait race; [second](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35740408065) exposed the normalized session-open receipt mismatch. Both corrections are in the final source. - Targeted server suites: 570 passed before the final two additional receipt regression cases. The physical-proof suite, including those cases, passed 46/46. Eval oracle and catalog: 40 passed. Server and Product E2E typechecks passed. - **All 54 PR checks passed on final head `db6f775df`**, including repository typecheck, build, tests, browser shards, and canary dry run. The canary job required one retry after its runner received a shutdown signal. On the earlier core proof head, two timing-sensitive tests passed in isolation and on a single CI retry. - Final UI regression checks: 5 passed; UI typecheck and token gates passed. Updated eval oracle/catalog: 40 passed; eval typecheck passed. - Final version-9 two-provider campaign: **2/2 passed, 2/2 cleanup passed**, including the browser assertion that the quarantined historical run never regains Try again. [Final campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35747416013), source `db6f775dfff405e1514ec02fedb0450d42c7dad2`, definition hash `bf5abf1cc45cb6dad4e082fbf818b8fa0f4d8c282776a7e98762b22919eadab7`. [Final public evidence report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35747416013-1/). Final screenshots and retained state inspected for both providers; cost coverage remains partial. ## Risks - Missing or conflicting stop evidence keeps the conversation blocked. This change does not kill an unverified process. - This qualifies new user input after local worker loss. It does not enable automatic replay, exact-session recovery, remote crash recovery, or native onboarding defaults. - Old action outcomes remain part of the continuation. A process exit is not proof that an action did not happen. - No schema migration or production prompt change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier or context-window size. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell tools, and test 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 - [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>