mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
3cc1032f6a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people direct agent work through tasks and structured answers. > - Dependencies stop task execution until prerequisite work finishes. > - A person must still be able to answer or redirect the assignee of a blocked task. > - Ordinary comments already get a bounded answer/triage turn. A saved question response has no comment ID, so the same gates reject it. > - Later dispatch also requires an active task and tries to check it out. That conflicts with bounded interaction on a blocked task. > - This pull request verifies the stored human response at each gate and keeps the turn in bounded interaction mode. > - The assignee can receive the answer without starting dependency work or removing its blockers. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19923. That change covers dependency waits and comment retries. This change covers stored interaction responses that have no comment ID. **What happened?** A parent task waits on a parked child. The assignee asked a setup question. After a person answers, the response stays queued. Sending that saved response is refused as `issue_dependencies_blocked`. Ordinary new messages can reach the same assignee. Passing admission alone is insufficient. The dispatch status check rejects a blocked task, and automatic checkout then tries to start work whose prerequisites are unfinished. **Expected behavior** Deliver the stored human answer or confirmation to its requesting assignee as a bounded answer/triage turn. Keep the task blocked and keep its dependency relationships. Preserve current-owner, pause, approval, budget, recovery, and execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a parent task and make a backlog child block it. 2. Save a question on the parent and answer it as a person. 3. Dispatch its resolved-interaction wake, or send the saved answer from the task queue. 4. Observe that the answer does not reach the provider while an ordinary comment can run in answer/triage mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `653ab8b18f76`. This branch is rebased onto master at `0e3fdebea8`. ## What Changed - Verify the stored response by company, task, requesting agent, status, kind, human resolver, and resolution time. A context flag alone is insufficient. - Allow a verified response through dependency admission and claim in the existing bounded interaction mode. - Recheck that response during scheduled retry promotion and final provider dispatch. - Keep bounded responses from checking out the blocked task or setting it to `in_progress`, including when the last blocker finishes during preparation. - Preserve continuation classification through workspace and AI-account resource waits, so the final response and owner checks still run. - Correct the task-case API summary so the existing `case for task` discovery regression passes on the first search page. This fixes a pre-existing failure exposed by full CI, without changing search ranking or assertions. - Ignore obsolete Retry notices after newer conversation work, without acknowledging saved input or changing execution authority. - Document the response contract. Add real PostgreSQL and assembled-heartbeat regressions. ## Verification - Final commit `ba4b337cf1bb0236b7c0a742665b222ee894ff51`: [required CI passed, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42706363120/attempts/2), including typecheck, production build, server/chat tests, Runner checks, and all 8 browser shards. PR status: 59 passing checks and 3 normal skips. - Red: answered questions and accepted/rejected confirmations return no admitted run before the fix. All three new positive cases fail at the dependency gate. A resource-wait retry also reproduces as refused before its gate is fixed. - Green: at delivery revision `9375a603e4`, focused heartbeat integration and classification passed 14 tests; retry scheduling and dispatch safety passed 241 tests. These use real PostgreSQL and controlled adapter and resource-availability boundaries. The wider initial dependency, native-continuation, and queue suites also passed before the final refinements. - Negative cases keep pending, missing, wrong-task, and agent-resolved responses blocked. Changing the response proof immediately before dispatch cancels the run without calling the provider. Policy controls retain the current assignee, task status, and pending approval checks. - Positive cases execute once, leave the parent blocked, preserve the dependency edge, and leave the child in backlog with no child execution. The same saved response survives a resource wait; removing its human proof refuses promotion. - The resource-wait provider-boundary and blocker-completion regressions also failed before their fixes. All 14 focused integration and classifier cases passed at delivery revision `9375a603e4`, including a changed response during retry preparation. - Red: a retained Retry for an older run makes a newer successful conversation display as failed. Green: all 78 database-backed query and interruption-presentation tests pass, including a later real failure and independent queued input controls. - Server layered typecheck and module-boundary checks passed at `11992aad0c7fbaf13e7548d71ee633560bd8bb6f`, before the one-line API summary correction. That CI passed build, typecheck and every browser shard, but exposed the pre-existing case-search assertion and a report-assets test timeout. Final-head CI passed as linked above. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on final commit `ba4b337cf1bb0236b7c0a742665b222ee894ff51`, with no unresolved threads. - The existing API discovery suite reproduced its first-page assertion before the summary correction; all 3 cases pass afterward. The timed-out report-assets privacy test passed locally in isolation and the full support job passed on the final-head rerun. Runner shutdowns interrupted the first attempt; affected jobs were rerun once without code changes. A separate onboarding timeout also passed on that rerun. - `pnpm verify --explain` requests broad CI because the execution contract is a global input. The final CI run supplied that coverage. - Separately recovered the reported staging conversation through an ordinary message and the existing steering control. The agent acknowledged the message and the saved-answer queue drained. The fresh Notebook action subsequently succeeded. This was on the previously deployed revision; it does not claim this code is deployed. ## Risks - This changes admission and dispatch. Each gate checks the persisted response; no caller-supplied marker grants the exception. - The bounded turn does not check out the task, resolve a dependency, or approve another action. Existing pause, ownership, budget, approval, and stopped-execution controls still apply. - Each additional lookup is one primary-key read and runs only for a response on a dependency-blocked path. There is no new polling worker. - No migration is required. Older queued contexts get the exception only when their stored human response still verifies. No prior run or action is replayed by this change. - This PR does not roll out the code to staging. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID, context-window limit, or reasoning-mode label; those values are not asserted. ## 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>