mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude
289b402c26
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A native agent run can ask the board a question and park on that saved (governed) wait > - PR #20494 made a saved wait settle after a control-plane restart for Codex, which reports the parked turn as interrupted > - Claude runs through ACPX. After a kill -9 restart, Runnerd restores the conversation and reports the parked turn as `turn.failed` with `provider_turn_lost_on_restore` > - The governed-wait drain and the saved-replay check rejected every failed terminal as unproven, so the saved question failed and the task needed a human Retry > - Runnerd emits `provider_turn_lost_on_restore` only after it proves that the old provider lifetime ended. That is the same proof as an interrupted terminal > - This pull request accepts that recoverable restart loss as proof for a saved governed wait, and only that failure > - The benefit is that a Claude question survives a control-plane kill the same way a Codex question does ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20494. Related: #20498 (Claude lost cancel reply; this change does not touch that code). **What happened?** Restart chaos wave w-20261110T094930-s214 (Claude, Q1, PV1 and PV2 with `--provider-fault-restart K1`) failed 2 of 2 Q1 tasks with `R3:retry_needed`. The asking run ended `failed` with `native_provider_terminal_failed`. Its events show the question saved, the K1, recovery with `native_governed_wait_settlement_pending`, and then `turn.failed` with `provider_turn_lost_on_restore` for the parked turn. The thrown `providerCode` was `governed_wait_provider_terminal_unproven`. **What did you expect?** The saved question settles after the restart. The asking run ends `succeeded`. The board answer wakes the agent without a Retry. **Steps to reproduce** Run the harness with `--adapters claude --workloads Q1 --faults PV1,PV2 --provider-fault-restart K1 --provider-fault-delays 3 --provider-fault-restart-after-seconds 1 --concurrency 1 --tasks 4`. The new unit-test variants `lost-on-restore-after-restart` and `lost-on-restore-saved` failed with the same `providerCode` before this change. ## What Changed - `native-session-runtime.ts`: add `governedWaitTerminalProven(event)`. A failed terminal proves the stop only when `isNativeRestartInterruption(error)` is true (code `provider_turn_lost_on_restore`, `recoverable: true`). Other terminals keep the old rule (`providerTerminalObserved !== false`). - The governed-wait accounting drain and the saved-replay check both use that helper. - Tests: two new variants of the #20494 test (a lost terminal after the restart, and a lost terminal already saved before the next recovery). Two new rejection cases: a non-restart failed terminal and a non-recoverable restart loss still fail with `governed_wait_provider_terminal_unproven`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/native-session-runtime`: 265 tests pass. The two new settle variants failed before the fix. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec tsc --noEmit -p .` passes. - A live restart chaos wave on this branch (Claude Q1, PV1/PV2 + K1) is linked in a comment below when it finishes. ## Risks - Low risk. The change accepts one more terminal as proof for a saved governed wait. That terminal comes only from Runnerd after it proves the old provider lifetime ended, and the code already trusts it to continue a restart-lost turn (`nativeRestartInterruptedTurnId`). - A failed terminal with any other code, or a non-recoverable restart loss, is still rejected. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>