mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
be821a4f7e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators depend on `/api/health` and OpenAPI status surfaces to know whether the local control plane is healthy. > - Database backups are a safety-critical background process, but backup failures were not represented in health responses. > - That gap means an instance can look healthy while backup state is stale, failing, or unavailable. > - This pull request adds backup-health evaluation and exposes it through the health route, server startup wiring, and OpenAPI contract. > - The benefit is earlier operator visibility when automatic backups stop protecting instance data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Automatic database backup health was not included in the app health response, so backup failures or stale backups could be missed while `/api/health` still looked otherwise usable. **Expected behavior** The health endpoint should include backup-health details that let operators identify disabled, stale, failing, or healthy backup states. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a Paperclip instance with automatic database backups. 2. Force backup status into a stale or failing state. 3. Call `/api/health` and inspect whether backup state is represented. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the PR base. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and self-hosted server deployments. **Installation method** Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). **Agent adapter(s) involved** - [x] Not adapter-specific (core bug) **Database mode** Embedded development Postgres and external Postgres backup paths. **Access context** Board/operator health checks. **Relevant logs or output** Covered by the added `server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` cases. **Relevant config (if applicable)** Not applicable. **Additional context** This surfaces backup status only; it does not change backup execution scheduling. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added a database backup health service that classifies backup recency, status, and failure conditions. - Wired backup health into app/server startup and the health route response. - Documented the backup-health behavior in development docs and OpenAPI output. - Added focused health route tests for healthy, stale, disabled, and failing backup states. ## Verification - `/srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` ## Risks Low-to-medium risk. This changes health response content and may affect external health consumers that parse fields strictly. It should not alter backup execution itself. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5 coding agent with repository tool use and local shell execution. Context window was not surfaced by the runtime. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>