mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 00:26:28 +01:00
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
39442400b7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native runs can save a governed wait (a question or confirmation for a person) and park the provider turn > - If shutdown of the retained execution cannot be confirmed in time, the run keeps its checkpoint, records `native_governed_wait_settlement_pending`, and schedules a same-run resume that settles the saved wait (#20336, #20494, #20519) > - That failure writes an active recovery action for the run. Its cause is in `EXECUTION_RECONCILIATION_CAUSES`, and its wake policy resumes that same run > - When the run is a resolved-interaction continuation, its dispatch gate checks execution blockers. The gate read the run's own resume action as a hold and cancelled the resume with `execution_reconciliation_required` > - The task then stayed blocked with no Retry and no continue control, and the saved question could not wake the agent > - This pull request makes the gate skip only the run's own scheduled-resume action > - The benefit is that a saved governed wait settles by itself, with no person involved ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20494, #20519, #20809 **What happened?** A staging Codex run on a remote sandbox was a continuation after an answered question. The agent saved a second governed wait (a confirmation). Shutdown confirmation of the retained execution was still pending, so the run recorded `native_governed_wait_settlement_pending` and scheduled its exact-checkpoint resume. The resume reattached to the remote runner and started. 32 s later it ended `cancelled` with `execution_reconciliation_required`. No person cancelled it. The lifecycle event of the cancel carried the run's own recovery action id. The task showed `blocked` with `canRetry: false` and `canContinue: false`, and no later run started. **Expected behavior** The same-run resume settles the saved governed wait. The task waits for the person's answer. No run is cancelled and no recovery action needs a person. **Steps to reproduce** 1. A native run starts as a resolved-interaction continuation (context `mutation: interaction`, `interactionStatus: answered`). 2. The run saves a governed wait, and shutdown confirmation does not arrive in time (`native_governed_wait_settlement_pending`). 3. The coordinator schedules the same-run resume. At dispatch, `decideCurrentRunStaleness` calls `getExecutionBlocker`, which returns the run's own active action, and `cancelStaleRunInTx` cancels the run. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/execution-blocker.ts`: `getExecutionBlocker` takes `resumingNativeRunId`. For that run it skips only the active action whose wake policy is `resume_native_run` for the same run and whose evidence names that run. Workspace-restore holds and all other actions still block. - `server/src/modules/run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.ts`: the dispatch staleness decision passes the native run id. - `server/src/modules/run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.test.ts`: the failing case and two controls (an action for another run, an action without a resume policy still cancel). - `tests/restart-chaos`: new opt-in workload Q4 (a second saved question asked by the first answer's continuation run). Provider-fault rules take `occurrence`; Q4 rules use 2, so PV1/PV2 hit the second governed wait. Codex shim and ACPX tap both honor it. README documents Q4. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: states that the run's own scheduled resume is not a hold against it. ## Verification - Red on master: `postgres.test.ts -t "saved governed wait"` fails with `{ dispatched: false, status: "cancelled", errorCode: "execution_reconciliation_required" }` (the staging error code). - Green: the same test passes; the two controls still cancel. - Focused: `postgres.test.ts`, `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`, `native-preclaim-continuation.test.ts`, `workspace-recovery-preparation-gates.test.ts`; server typecheck. - Harness: `question-handoff.test.ts`, `provider-faults.test.ts`, `acpx-provider-faults.test.ts`, `journeys.test.ts`; harness typecheck. - Chaos: `--adapters codex --workloads Q4 --faults PV2 --tasks 1 --seed 111` on master and on this branch (results in a comment below). ## Risks - Low. The exemption is exact: same run id in the wake policy and the evidence, status `active`, only for a native run being dispatched. A recovery action that names another run, has no resume policy, or is resolved keeps its current effect. - Saved state from older versions: actions already written have the same shape, so a resume that is still scheduled settles after deploy. > 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 - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com>