mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
a12bbd1824
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runtime records completion assessments and task decisions. > - An application update can change the assessment policy version. > - The previous code treated that version change as a reason for human review. > - An upgrade alone does not give the user a new decision to make. > - This change keeps existing decisions and withdraws obsolete upgrade review cards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A rules version change moved unfinished tasks into review and created a card that said, "Review the superseding native policy assessment." The task did not need new work or a human decision. **Expected behavior** New runs use the current rules. An upgrade leaves existing task decisions alone. The saved policy version remains available in the audit history. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a native run assessment and a task decision. 2. Change the native status policy version. 3. Run finalization reconciliation without new task evidence. 4. The previous code created a review card. The corrected code keeps the saved assessment and decision. Related context: #13038 changed the native policy version. Searches found no duplicate fix for upgrade-only completion reviews. ## What Changed - Remove policy-version mismatch as a reconciliation trigger. - Withdraw pending cards only when their source decision, effect ledger, creator, key, and prompt match the old upgrade-only review. - Restore the previous status only while that decision and status version remain current and no other review gate is pending. - Preserve answered cards, real review requests, later task changes, and historical assessments and decisions. - Record cleanup activity and retire any corresponding chat review actions. - Isolate cleanup failures so one old card cannot block other cleanup or normal finalization. - Update the status conformance fixture, regression tests, and architecture documentation. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` (23 tests, including the 53-fixture status corpus). - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `git diff --check`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: fresh Greptile review at 5/5 on `d24e5ecaf`, with no open review threads. - Passed: the 23 focused tests in the isolated full-suite environment. - Local `pnpm test:run`: the server group finished with 10,638 passed and one missing-fixture failure. Built the required `fake-codex-app-server` fixture and reran the entire affected native session-resume suite: 37/37 passed. The initial full command exited on that server-group failure, so remaining groups are covered by CI. - Passed: the workspace-runtime-exposure suite (25 tests, 3 platform skips). - Passed: all CI gates, including every test shard, browser tests, typecheck, and build. The server shard passed on one retry after an unrelated host-port conflict in the unchanged workspace-exposure tests. - Cleanup tests cover repeat runs, real reviews, answered cards, later statuses, newer decision identity, status changes back to review, other pending requests, run scope, cleanup failures, retry, and live publication failures. ## Risks - Cleanup changes stored task state. It checks the exact obsolete decision and status version under database locks before restoring status. - Pending approvals, interactions, and execution stages prevent restoration out of review. - The cleanup handles at most 100 matching cards per reconciliation pass. It does not rewrite old decisions or accept an agent's completion claim. - New evidence and explicit task changes still use the existing reconciliation paths. This change does not reevaluate old work merely because Paperclip was updated. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and automated tests. ## 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>