mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 13:20:54 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
27fbdb2a74
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their workspaces. > - Remote runs stage a recoverable copy of the selected host workspace. > - New tasks use separate workspace IDs and Git branches. > - The verified seed cache currently treats those identities as different content. > - This causes repeated clones and seed verification when task files and Git commits are identical. > - This pull request shares immutable seed content within a company and applies each task's branch to a private archive. > - It also removes credential broker calls for two local Git snapshot commands. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** New remote tasks rebuild the same Git seed under different workspace IDs and branches. In a measured staging run, preparation took 29.7 seconds. Git clone took 6.1 seconds and optional seed publication took 7.8 seconds. Publication overlapped the 4.4-second transfer, so those values cannot be added. Local `diff-files` and `write-tree` commands also request GitHub credentials. **What did you expect?** Reuse a verified seed when filesystem contents, Git HEAD, origin, and nested repository layout match. Preserve each task's branch, recovery archive, ignored files, and copyback behavior. Keep local snapshot plumbing independent of GitHub credential capture. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a remote native environment and a Git project workspace. 2. Create two tasks from the same source commit with different task branches and workspace IDs. 3. Inspect the workspace preparation spans. Both tasks currently clone and publish the same seed content. **Paperclip version and deployment mode** Reproduced on Core `25f1070fbdabd96b26cdf199e624a77905f3ca37`, with a managed remote sandbox and native Runner. The local comparison used a public repository at a fixed commit with roughly 13,000 entries. Refs #17886, #16398, #16399, #17357. The Git launcher extension builds on Jamie Buchanan's work in #17886. The other PRs establish the seed verification, recovery, and eviction contracts preserved here. A search found no open PR for sharing these verified seeds across task branches. ## What Changed - Use a company-scoped cache bucket for native host-current preparation. Keep the existing bucket and company storage limits and eviction rules. - Remove branch names from the shared generation identity. Keep file contents, Git HEAD, origin, and nested layout in that identity. Keep the default workspace-scoped identity unchanged for other callers. - Store a detached Git archive in the shared cache. Copy it and append the selected branch metadata before upload and private per-run persistence. Existing durable-seed replay can read the private archive without the new cache option. - Forward the scope through the execution target and both command-runtime paths. - Treat `diff-files` and `write-tree` as local Git commands. Network commands, unknown commands, and managed commit identity keep their existing credential path. - Test new workspace IDs, named and detached branches, nested repositories, dirty and ignored files, symlinks, recovery, corrupt caches, refused publication, and copyback. ## Verification - Current head `6087bac274d50804d1b332646e43f3b8d41d798f`: 53 checks passed, two optional checks skipped, Greptile 5/5, no unresolved review threads. Linux CI passed. - Adapter-utils TypeScript 7.0.2 typecheck passed. - Server package typecheck passed, including its Runner and plugin build prerequisites. - 140 seed-cache, seed-reuse, and sandbox-runtime tests passed after rebasing. - 44 Git launcher and command-runtime tests passed after rebasing. - 30 native workspace preparation, warm history, and retention-configuration tests passed. All 56 retention tests also passed (5.72 seconds) after repairing missing library aliases inside the installed macOS Postgres package. That local dependency repair changed no repository source. The earlier startup timeouts occurred before test assertions. - The new seed reuse regression failed before the change because the second branch cloned again. It passes through the execution target and both command-runtime paths after the change. - Clean local preparation comparison: two alternating measured pairs, with an existing verified company seed and new task branches. Baseline: 19.63 and 9.85 seconds. Shared cache: 5.18 and 4.80 seconds. Median: 14.74 to 4.99 seconds. Each baseline cloned and published; each shared-cache run skipped both. Branch and file checks passed. The complete comparison loop took 58 seconds. - The comparison used real Git, archives, snapshot workers, and local file transport. It used no model calls. It does not establish a complete staging response time. The first generation still pays the cold preparation cost. ## Risks - A shared cache hit requires an identical generation that is still present. The company bucket retains the existing 16-generation/1 GiB bucket limit; busy companies may miss more often. - The branch binding appends entries to a private tar archive. Tests cover the host platform; Linux CI must also pass before merge. - A cache miss, corruption, or capacity refusal must retain the private recovery path. Existing tests exercise those cases. - Git plumbing can still encounter repository-specific filters or missing objects. This extends the existing local-command policy by two commands; it does not grant network credentials to them. - The latest measured real staging reply took 77.8 seconds. This change targets a bounded part of that path and does not claim the under-15-second response goal is met. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The session does not expose the exact model revision 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>