mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
3040448da5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip preserves agent work when a control-plane server is replaced. > - Online workspace imports save exact cohort, operation and snapshot identities for restart. > - A cohort proof also includes the complete current companion source scope. > - An independent companion import removes that companion from the local scope. > - The saved cohort then fails resume even when every saved member is unchanged. > - This pull request rechecks the current scope under fresh locks and refreshes its proof for all members in one transaction. > - The benefit is restartable online migration while independent work progresses. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #19873, #20394, #20418. Related PR search found the original cohort owner, recovery-proof refresh and separate child-verification reuse. This fix addresses cohort scope freshness. **What happened?** An interrupted cohort rejects resume with `workspace_cohort_membership_changed` after a nonmember companion is migrated. The saved source proof includes companion workspace and task IDs. The exact saved members and their fingerprints can remain unchanged. **Expected behavior** The same saved cohort must resume after fresh admission. It must keep all member, operation and snapshot IDs. Changed members, active owners, changed journals and lost source locks must still refuse publication. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a two-member cohort and interrupt the second upload after the first archive is saved. 2. Import an archived nonmember companion through the existing canonical migration owner. 3. Resume the same two-member cohort. The original implementation refuses before it acquires the source fence. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `3a5572c9e5`. **Deployment mode** Online administrative workspace migration with PostgreSQL and authenticated snapshot storage. ## What Changed - Admit a changed aggregate scope proof only when every saved member has a running journal and its current fingerprint matches both saved fingerprints. - Keep partial reservations on the original strict aggregate-proof path. Keep exact cohort and operation membership checks. - Run the existing source, lifecycle, recovery and finalizer admission before refresh. Lock member rows, inspect the current scope again, and compare every journal in one transaction. - Change only `cohortMigration.sourceProof`. Preserve all other metadata, identities, archive and recovery records. Abort the complete refresh on cancellation, a changed journal or a lost fence. - Extend the existing real PostgreSQL fixture with partial upload, canonical companion migration, refusal controls, transaction rollback, cold archive restore and replay. - Document the proof lifetime and resume boundary. ## Verification - Canonical Node24 worktree preflight passed. Plugin SDK build prerequisites passed. - Genuine RED on unchanged product: the real partial-upload and companion-import sequence fails with `workspace_cohort_membership_changed` (1 failed; 22 intentionally not selected; 10.44 seconds). - The identical positive passes after the fix (1 passed; 22 intentionally not selected; 9.87 seconds). - The complete focused cohort file passes: 23 tests in 33.33 seconds. Existing controls include changed member fingerprints, foreign and completed journals, active operations, peer cancellation, actual source-fence connection loss and outer-commit failure. - The new sequence also checks a held source lock, a held finalizer lock, cancellation before refresh, and an injected second-member update failure. The failed update rolls back every proof change. Both saved archives restore tracked and untracked work, and replay uses the same cohort. - After one final read-only preflight assertion, that complete new sequence passes again in 14.52 seconds with 22 existing cases intentionally not selected. Server TypeScript passes on the final files. Module boundaries and `git diff --check` pass. - Commands: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/remote-workspace-cohort-migration.test.ts`; final case selection: `-t 'same uploaded cohort'`; `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`; `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`. - Initial local setup attempts remain nonpasses: sandbox PostgreSQL could not bind localhost, then the new archived companion fixture used a noncanonical repository folder. The corrected fixture uses the existing managed repository path. Neither setup failure is counted as the product RED. - Fresh [Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20429#issuecomment-6755862789) is 5/5 on exact head `6c640c4667b136e5416c1375f491729cf4bb9b49`, with zero inline threads. Required final-head CI is running. Hosted acceptance is not claimed by this PR. ## Risks - The old aggregate proof contains only a hash. Refresh therefore requires durable fingerprints for every saved member and repeats all current admission guards. A partially reserved cohort cannot use this path. - A stale proof must never hide a changed member or a new writer. Current source inspection, P/I/L/F locks, locked member rows, complete journal compare-and-swap and the existing capture and publication checks remain authoritative. - The all-member update must stay atomic. A database fault or cancellation rolls it back. The original cohort, operation and snapshot IDs remain fixed. - The change adds one bounded transaction only when a fully saved cohort's scope proof changes. It adds no recurring work, schema, provider, archive format, concurrency or deployment changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment identifier 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 - [ ] 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>