mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 16:11:46 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
a38ccf9972
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the tasks that they execute. > - The run scheduler checks continuation authority before it starts a provider. > - This check uses database locks to order execution against conversation closure. > - A short lock conflict could fail a valid user follow-up before the provider started. > - This pull request retries the admission transaction after the locks are released. > - Valid work can start after normal contention, while closure and cancellation still stop execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13038. Related continuation work: #13270 and #13239. **What happened?** A user comment started a run through the automation queue. Its source records and admission marker were valid. A database lock conflict at dispatch caused `chat_control_recovery_proof_unresolved` and stopped automatic recovery. The provider received no work. **Expected behavior** Retry short database lock conflicts before failing admission. Read current ownership and conversation-close evidence on each attempt. Do not retry provider execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Queue a user follow-up through the automation transport. 2. Hold the task row lock in a separate transaction at the dispatch boundary. 3. Release the lock after 250 ms. 4. Before this fix, the run fails before provider dispatch. With this fix, the run passes admission once the lock is released. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on base commit `1c4bcff2b`. Disabling the new retry reproduces the original error in the regression test. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with PostgreSQL. Regression tests use embedded PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Retry rolled-back admission transactions after lock conflicts, with up to 50 waits of 100 ms. - Keep queue claims nonblocking. Keep provider dispatch outside the retried transaction. - Recheck current run state and committed close evidence after every conflict. - Explain persistent database contention in the exhausted admission error. - Add real database contention tests and bounded retry tests. Document the behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/services/chat-control-admission-retry.test.ts`: 273 passed. This includes task, wake, and run locks, the native runner, close/cancel races, unrelated failures, and retry exhaustion. - Regression proof: disabling retries makes the user-follow-up test fail with `chat_control_recovery_proof_unresolved`. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: stopped after all equivalent CI server/workspace shards passed. The local run exposed a missing `fake-codex-app-server` fixture binary in the fresh worktree; after `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner run build:rust`, the complete affected `native-session-resume.test.ts` suite passes (37 tests). - Greptile: 5/5, no findings, on commit `c974a496a`. - CI: all 31 checks passed on commit `c974a496a`, including all server/workspace test shards, browser tests, typecheck, runner verification, build, and the release dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654770074). ## Risks - A contended dispatch can wait through 50 short delays, plus transaction time. - Persistent contention still fails closed after the retry budget. Invalid source evidence fails without retrying admission. - No schema, permission, provider retry budget, or queue-claim behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and command execution. ## 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>