mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 18:19:05 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
4660b22f6b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs append native events and retry-exhaustion receipts. > - These writes lock the run row and verify its company and agent bindings. > - The binding check fetched the full run, including prompts, configuration, and output. > - This pull request reads only the two fields that the check uses. > - The benefit is less database transfer while the same row lock protects sequence allocation and replay checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #17355 and #17348 reduce other run-read payloads. GitHub searches for event-read and narrow-run PRs found no duplicate of this event-ingestion change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The run binding read during native event and retry-exhaustion ingestion. **Current behavior** The transaction uses a full-row `SELECT ... FOR UPDATE` to check only `companyId` and `agentId`. Large run context, runner configuration, and output cross the database connection for each such check. **Proposed behavior** Select only the company and agent IDs. Keep the same run ID predicate, row lock, transaction, sequence allocator, replay cursor, and binding checks. **Reason and benefit** The check does not use the other fields. Narrowing the query removes that repeated transfer without a cache or an authorization change. **Breaking changes** None. No API response, schema, event, or scheduling changes. ## What Changed - Narrow the existing run-row read inside `appendHeartbeatRunEvent`. The event service continues to own its transaction and binding validation. - Exercise native and retry-exhaustion writes and replays with large stored payloads. Record the executed SQL to prove the lock reads only the two binding fields. - Extend missing-run and company/agent mismatch coverage to both transaction paths. Keep the existing concurrent-writer and rollback tests. - Document the read boundary. ## Verification - Focused PostgreSQL event append and sequencing suites: 9 tests passed. They include concurrent writers, replay conflicts, rollback, cursor checks, large payloads, and company/agent/missing-run denials. - The first new retry-exhaustion fixture failed its duplicate assertion because it omitted the exhaustion fields from the event payload. The existing producer contract stores those fields in the payload. The fixture now does the same; the rerun passed. No production retry or replay logic changed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - Greptile Apex: 5/5 on `76a6d3ee813ae47919b1ec8e8b88e01e58d5655d`, clean check and no review threads. The [full PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40028758665) passed on that exact head: 54 checks passed and two conditional checks were skipped. The branch is conflict-free. - The full local all-in-one suite is not repeated for this follow-up. Full exact-head CI will supply the broader suite coverage. - No hosted deployment or bill reduction is claimed for this follow-up. ## Risks - Low scope: only the selected columns change. The `FOR UPDATE` lock, transaction boundaries, sequence reservation, duplicate checks, and failure handling remain in place. - Native replay and legacy event writers must still serialize on the same row. Existing real PostgreSQL concurrency tests cover that boundary. - No migration, provider change, new timer, or operator configuration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family), with code execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window. ## 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 #` 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 (focused suites 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 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>