mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 04:02:18 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
27a87c0f22
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runners persist incoming events in the server process. > - Routine progress and usage events can cause many full journal writes. > - Synchronous file flushes stop that process from serving unrelated requests. > - Output deltas already use asynchronous writes, but other frequent events still block. > - This pull request stages routine events privately and publishes them after persistence. > - Critical lifecycle events keep their existing ordering. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17745, #17514. **What happened?** Page navigation, task saves, and archive requests stalled during native runner output. A post-fix CPU profile still spent about 7 seconds of a 19-second window in synchronous event journal flushes. Progress and usage events caused much of this traffic. **Expected behavior** Routine event file writes must let unrelated HTTP requests run. The durable cursor must advance only after persistence. Completion and semantic tool admission must retain their ordering. **Steps to reproduce** Run a native task that emits frequent tool progress and usage events. Send HTTP requests while its volume flushes are slow. The controlled tests hold a real file flush and send a real HTTP request during that hold. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced after #17745 on master. ## What Changed - Stage priority 1 and 2 event snapshots with asynchronous file writes and flushes. - Keep candidate events out of the public in-memory journal until the durable commit finishes. - Include a pending event in a command's existing durable write. Command bursts do not cause repeated event writes or business callbacks. - Reject stale candidates after an authenticated connection replaces their owner. - Keep priority 0 events, all run and turn lifecycle events, and semantic tool input persistence synchronous, including terminals labeled priority 1. - Extend slow-volume tests for progress, usage, critical events, concurrent commands, reconnects, write failures, drain, and replay. - Update the durable event delivery documentation. ## Verification - Controlled regression: the previous implementation failed the new progress and usage slow-flush cases and exposed pending delta state. The updated implementation passes all sixteen controlled cases. - All 137 durable control-plane tests and three saved-continuation cases pass. The continuation cases use the actual Rust bridge. - Review regressions failed before the correction: a priority-1 terminal took the asynchronous path and command writes did not absorb the pending event. The correction passes these tests, a two-command burst with one staged write, and a directory-flush failure after command/event rename. - An authority-boundary regression also failed before its correction. Explicit snapshot transactions now retire pending coalescing, so a later command cannot publish an older event; the test verifies replay after restart. - An initial version made lifecycle events asynchronous too. The saved-continuation tests caught missing final run receipts at completion. Keeping priority 0 events synchronous fixes those failures. This version does not claim asynchronous lifecycle support. - Repository typecheck and build pass locally after the review fixes. At the previous head `886f2b961f035071bd947b5116b1f7a2727ec17f`, run `40404783081` passed the full CI suite, including 4,024 package runner tests and 96 native-runtime tests. Final-head CI run `40409537748`, attempt 2, passed. All 46 substantive jobs and both aggregate gates succeeded. Runner lanes passed 4,032 package tests and 96 native-runtime tests. The retry carried forward the successful substantive jobs from attempt 1 and completed both aggregate gates. - Greptile reviewed final head `735245931450810246e3008231a29fd56d615f67` at 5/5 with no actionable findings. The separate Paperclip review execution ended neutrally without a new assessment. Its earlier command-churn finding is fixed and its outdated thread is resolved; the documentation and priority-1 coverage comments are also addressed. - The local wider runner suite passed 449 of 450 tests. The retained-terminal replay case fails on both this candidate and unchanged master at the same maintenance-proof check. Both local runs leave an old terminal receipt pending behind the event backlog. These failed runs remain recorded; they are not counted as passes. - The broad local test command also failed one unchanged workspace-runtime port-allocation case. That case passed in isolation. Its cause is unresolved. The broad local run was stopped after the complete CI test groups passed; no full local-suite pass is claimed. - Live staging acceptance remains pending. - The tests hold a real `FileHandle.sync`, verify an actual HTTP response during the hold, and check disk and memory cursors. They also verify command preservation and idempotent replay. ## Risks - Asynchronous writes add time for concurrent commands or reconnects to arrive. Commands absorb the event in their existing write. Revision checks prevent stale publication. Other authority changes leave the unacknowledged event for replay instead of retrying full snapshot writes. - ACKs still wait for the file flush, atomic rename, and directory flush. Write errors still fence further writes until reload. - Critical commits, JSON serialization, rename, and directory flushes still run synchronously. A command's coalesced event uses that command's existing synchronous commit. This change does not eliminate every possible source of latency. - No schema, API, dependency, or wire contract changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific deployment model ID 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 - [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>