mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
2aac7d29ff
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task that starts, stops or repairs a workspace's runtime services takes a runtime lease, so two tasks never drive the same workspace at once > - A lease whose owner task or run has ended must be released. Until now that happened only when the next claimant arrived and checked, or when 30 minutes of inactivity passed > - The durable ownership plan releases a record when its owner is proven gone, by identity and never by age, through the shared reconciler > - This pull request registers the runtime lease with the reconciler. Proof releases a lease; the 30-minute idle rule stays only as a fairness policy at claim time > - The benefit is that a workspace locked by a finished task frees itself at once, and a live task's lease is never taken by age ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831 (plan, Phase 2 sections A and C), #19838 (inventory: "Execution workspace runtime lease", and the "Released only by TTL/age" list). **What happened?** `execution_workspace_runtime_lease` was a report-only kind. A lease whose issue or run had ended stayed held until another claim came, or until its 30-minute TTL expired. The claim path also mixed the TTL with the ownership check. **Expected behavior** An issue- or run-owned lease is released when its owner is proven gone: the issue is missing, hidden or terminal, or the run is missing or terminal. Age is not proof. An agent-scoped owner has no identity to prove, so the lease's expiry plus the next claim's locked takeover is the fenced handoff. ## What Changed - New `workspace-runtime-lease-settlement.ts`: `settleExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeLease` locks the row, requires the same owner key, re-proves that owner gone, and only then deletes the lease (compare-and-swap). - `workspace-runtime-leases.ts`: the new `proveWorkspaceRuntimeLeaseOwnerGone` holds the identity proof. The claim path checks it first, then applies the 30-minute idle reclaim as a separate fairness policy. - `recovery/ownership-registry.ts`: the kind registers the settle. Owners are now `issue`, `run`, or a fence on `expires_at` for agent-scoped keys. `RecordOwner` gains an `issue` kind. - `recovery/ownership-invariant-report.ts`: issue owners are classified (missing, hidden or terminal means gone). Salvaged from the stopped Phase 2 workspace agent's uncommitted work. I resolved it against current `master` and verified it. ## Verification - New `workspace-runtime-lease-ownership.test.ts`: 8 pass. Six fail on `master` and pass here: - a crash after the claim; - hidden or missing issues, and terminal or missing runs; - an agent-scoped lease never settles; - a read-only pass changes nothing; - a lease taken over after the proof is kept; - the release reason names the ownership proof, not the idle policy. Two guards pass on both: a live owner is never released by age, and the idle reclaim still works at claim time. - `ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts` (25), `workspace-runtime-leases.test.ts` (10) and `execution-workspace-runtime-lease-route.test.ts` (4) pass. - The server package typecheck passes. ## Risks - The reconciler now deletes leases whose owner is proven gone. It always re-proves under the row lock against the exact owner key. - The idle reclaim behaves as before at claim time. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>