mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
56c2b28c04
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native results must finish their durable finalization before later
work can reuse a saved workspace.
> - An accepted result can wait on a monitor while its workspace files
are recovered.
> - A newer user request can replace that old wait before finalization
resumes.
> - The old finalizer then reports lost monitor authority and blocks the
saved-workspace lineage.
> - This pull request proves the newer user request and settles only the
old result bookkeeping.
> - The benefit is released recovery work without replaying an old turn
or changing the current request.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17641 and #16975.
**What happened?**
An older successful native result has saved files and a server-issued
monitor receipt. Its task is now blocked after a newer user-comment
continuation failed during preparation. The old coordinator stays in
retryable_failure with monitor_wait_authority_lost. The retained
allocation ownership check correctly refuses the unresolved predecessor,
so later file recovery also stays held.
**Expected behavior**
The normal finalizer can settle the old accepted result when exact newer
user-request evidence proves the old wait is superseded. It must
preserve the current task, user input, ownership, schedule, accepted
result, and attempt history. It must not start provider work or publish
the old wait summary.
**Steps to reproduce**
Create an accepted successful monitor result and mark workspace
finalization successful. Leave the task blocked. Record a newer
canonical user comment and its ordinary user wake, either queued or
consumed by a same-task continuation that retains the exact comment
revision and source-run lineage. Call the real native finalizer. Before
the repair, both cases remain retryable_failure instead of settling.
**Paperclip version or commit**
e482f0f632, before this repair.
## What Changed
- Add a company-scoped passive supersession proof in the native monitor
owner. It applies only when the old wait is not currently eligible. The
proof binds the old accepted result and monitor receipt to a newer
canonical unedited user comment and matching user wake. Admitted
successors must retain the exact task, comment revision, and source
lineage.
- Recheck the proof under the existing task transaction, with
nonblocking shared locks on the comment and wake; contention uses the
existing status-race retry path. Commit a preserve decision with no
effects. Keep normal monitor authority, Stop, workspace finalization,
and retained-allocation guards unchanged.
- Add real PostgreSQL coverage for queued and consumed input, current
successor ownership, newer schedules, immutable accepted results,
attempt history, foreign/missing/cancelled evidence, and changes before
commit. Real scheduler ticks create no old monitor wake.
- Include the present superseding proof in the existing assessment
identity. The old failed assessment and decision stay immutable, while
the new decision gets its own assessment. Absent proof keeps the
existing fingerprint unchanged.
- Document passive finalization after a newer user request.
## Verification
- Behavioral RED before production edits: two real PostgreSQL finalizer
cases returned monitor_wait_authority_lost/retryable_failure instead of
settling after a newer queued or consumed user request. Initial
interrupted imports and rejected database setup were not counted as
behavioral failures.
- Additional real-boundary RED: the normal finalization reconciler
reconstructed both persisted errors but failed on
status_decisions_company_assessment_uq because the changed proof reused
an older assessment identity. The owned PostgreSQL log confirmed the
constraint. Including only the present proof in the existing fingerprint
makes both reconciler cases pass while old assessments and decisions
remain immutable.
- Review RED: real comment-row and wake-row contention produced
side_effect_planning_failed. A test-local 100ms lock timeout bounds this
diagnostic. Nonblocking proof locks and `55P03`→NativeStatusRaceError
safely defer both cases, preserve current state, and commit after the
original lock owner releases. Both regressions pass without weakening
the production lock or authority checks.
- Final local GREEN at `0c40331d8d7f587c9a532fbc51d358bfacd1bd46`: five
files, 111 passing tests (126.17s), including all 54 saved-monitor
cases, actual persisted-error reconciliation with an absent retry
deadline and older boot identity, the status
arbiter/task-monitor/terminal-status suites, and six model fixtures.
Current requests, schedules, holds, accepted results and prior
assessments/decisions remain unchanged; normal attempt increments and
idempotent repeat are asserted. Real scheduler ticks create no old
monitor wake.
- All seven server typecheck layers, module-boundary and whitespace
checks pass at the final inputs. Required preflight passes in 15.348s.
No new code comments were added. Local environment: macOS arm64, Node
26.4.0, pinned pnpm 9.15.4, Vitest 5.0.3, owned disposable PostgreSQL 18
with bounded 1GiB tmpfs; no shared Docker data was pruned.
- [Final-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42311889918):
59 successful checks,three intentional skips,one neutral optional
review,zero failed or pending checks. Required E2E and verify aggregates
pass. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved
findings.
- The [original support
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42311889918/job/128217026059)
passed 6849 assertions and hit one 30000ms timeout in an unchanged
private-evidence fixture. The exact case passed locally; all 41 cases
passed together (42.79s). The [identical-input sibling CI
control](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42311878548/job/128216598362)
passed all 6850 assertions and the 41-case file in 5.417s. Exactly one
targeted replay was authorized and dispatched after workflow completion
and ordinary quota reset, preserving the other 57 passing checks.
[Replay
job128227417618](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42311889918/job/128227417618)
passed 323 files/6850 assertions with four existing skips; the 41-case
file passed in 5.665s. No fixture, source, assertion, timeout,
credentials or full workflow was changed/replayed. The original timeout
remains recorded; its precise host-level cause was not determined.
- Inherited baseline failures were handled through normal integration of
existing #19610 (model expectations), #19627 (deterministic Slack
deadline fixture), and #19646 (current trusted Runner lane flags). All
four exact lane-command dry runs and the lane-inventory regression pass.
No force push or new production patch was used for those failures.
- Hosted recovery remains pending deployment and acceptance through the
normal pipeline; these checks do not claim the live task has already
recovered.
## Risks
- The new proof must remain passive. It cannot grant execution or
restore an obsolete task state. Missing or changing proof leaves the old
result held.
- The query reads only the same company's task and agent, with requests
newer than the old completion time and one selected result. It runs
during active finalization and adds no timer or idle polling.
- Edited comments, cancelled wakes, foreign lineage, source Stop, and
workspace failure are refused. Existing workspace snapshot, stop, and
handoff checks still own physical file recovery.
- Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment through the normal
pipeline.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family), with code execution and repository tools.
The runtime does not expose the exact serving 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>