mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
42c64d4ec4
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agent work and human approval. > - A saved Plan must wait for the user before work continues. > - The native runner interrupts the provider after it saves that wait. > - OpenCode can report the interruption with an idle event and no final answer. > - Empty-answer recovery treated that intentional pause as an incomplete answer. > - This change stops answer recovery for an interrupted turn. > - The runner still requires a real provider terminal before it settles the wait. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** OpenCode could send a corrective model request after Paperclip interrupted a turn for a saved approval request. The native runner then failed with `governed_wait_provider_terminal_unproven` because it did not receive the required terminal event within the existing drain window. **Expected behavior** An interrupted turn must stop requesting answers. A provider idle or cancelled event must remain available to the native wait settlement. An HTTP abort acknowledgement alone must not count as a terminal. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an OpenCode turn that has no final answer. 2. Interrupt that turn after saving a durable approval request. 3. Have the provider return `session.idle` or an idle `session.status`. 4. Observe that the old driver sends a second prompt instead of emitting the terminal event. The controlled regression fails before the fix for both idle event forms: it observes two prompts instead of one. The affected driver blob is identical in the deployed source and the current base. Related: #18364 added the empty-answer recovery path. ## What Changed - Record interruption intent for the active OpenCode turn before asynchronous settlement. - Cancel its answer-recovery timer and prevent corrective requests for that turn. - Preserve provider terminal checks and avoid a delayed abort of a later turn. - Cover both idle event forms, an existing correction, durable question handoff, in-flight tools, missing terminal evidence, and a later authorized turn. - Document the interruption contract. ## Verification - The new regression failed before the fix for the expected extra prompt. A second red test confirmed the sibling durable-question handoff also sent that unwanted prompt. - Interrupted idle events now produce explicit cancellation terminals. Tests reject a failed terminal and require normal completion on the later authorized turn. - All 305 targeted tests passed across the OpenCode driver, normal empty-answer recovery, interruption, backend publication, and native session runtime suites. - Runner TypeScript check passed: `tsc -p packages/paperclip-runner/tsconfig.json --noEmit`. - `git diff --check` passed. - Greptile reviewed the current commit at 5/5 with no findings. Both earlier Paperclip review findings are fixed and their threads are resolved. - The additional Paperclip advisory reviewer could not assess the final commit because its earlier workspace save did not finish. Its check is neutral; this is not a passing assessment. No reviewer configuration or workspace safety gate was changed. - Repository CI passed on run 41470761437, attempt 2. Attempt 1 retained a 15-second timeout in an unchanged voice-report test; only the failed jobs were retried once, on the same commit. The identical test also passed in an isolated baseline check against disposable PostgreSQL with its original timeout. - Live QA acceptance is pending. No eval prompt, model, allowance, timeout, or assertion changed. ## Risks The change affects OpenCode interruption and answer recovery. A silent provider must remain unproven; the negative control checks that case. Ordinary answer recovery remains enabled on authorized turns. No schema, permission, or provider configuration changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier 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>