mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
3a283fbc9b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A volume-free web server needs durable recovery data for retained sessions. > - An old failed follow-up can retain its snapshot while the warm supervisor still holds the preceding successful turn. > - The migration refuses to treat those different snapshots as the same execution authority. > - That refusal also blocks the tenant even when the failed source can be preserved as an archive. > - This pull request archives that narrow case after it verifies the older successful snapshot and all scope bindings. > - The failed run keeps its history and files while valid controller recovery keeps its existing proof requirements. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18959, which added the existing failed-controller archive path. No duplicate PR for this case was found. **What happened?** Offline controller migration stops with `stale_supervisor_snapshot` for an old failed warm follow-up. Its local supervisor still contains the prior successful turn. Read-only checks found the same database snapshot and supervisor bytes in the live source and the isolated copy. The mismatch predates the rehearsal. **Expected behavior** Preserve the failed run's database state and available local files in the existing durable archive. Only archive when the older supervisor matches a completed successful run in the same company, agent, task, native session and Runner instance. Keep current execution and controller authority checks intact. **Steps to reproduce** Create a successful native turn and a later failed warm follow-up. Keep the successful snapshot in the supervisor file and the failed snapshot in the database. Give the failed source local controller bytes but no durable controller checkpoint. Run the offline migration. The new regression fails with `stale_supervisor_snapshot` before this change. ## What Changed - Verify the older supervisor against scoped successful history and the same provider thread. - Use the existing encrypted archive owner for that failed legacy source. - Preserve snapshots, run status, ownership, queued work and the session's last-run pointer. - Keep foreign, changed, active, successful and already-durable sources outside this path. - Document the preservation and recovery boundary. ## Verification - New positive regression: red on the original owner, green after the change. - Native migration and controller recovery: 27 checks passed. Final migration checks also cover refusal to replace a durable checkpoint. - Storage failure blocks publication. Repeated migration is safe. The archive restores the exact controller and supervisor bytes after the old home is deleted. - The archived failed source does not gain executable recovery authority. - Local server typecheck is blocked by reused workspace declarations for accounting, bootstrap and ingress contracts. No diagnostic names either modified owner or test file. Full local typecheck, repo-wide tests and build are not claimed; clean CI is required before merge. The exact-head CI has now passed typecheck, build, policy, Runner checks, browser E2E, and all server test shards. - Rehearsal verification against the copied historical source remains required. Full tenant migration and hosted deployment qualification remain separate gates. ## Risks The archive preserves evidence for an already failed source. It does not certify that source as resumable. A prior snapshot must match exactly, and the normal archive owner checks the terminal failed binding before it publishes. Existing durable checkpoints remain authoritative. A missing or changed proof still blocks migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The host does not expose 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 described the issue in-PR following the bug template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant tests locally; retained failures and limits are listed above - [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 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>