mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
48c6e996da
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a remote run starts, workspace preparation attaches the verified saved work of earlier runs of the same task. > - Preparation failed with `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid` when any earlier run had a recovery receipt that it could not verify. > - A refusal cannot change the saved state, so every Retry failed in the same way, and the task stayed blocked. Recoveries must fall back automatically. > - This pull request skips an unverifiable source. It attaches nothing unverified and starts from the workspace's newest verified save. > - The benefit is that Retry and continuations start again, while strict receipt checks still decide what is attached, and no saved work is changed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20631 **What happened?** On staging, after the deploy that included #20631, a user pressed Retry on a task whose previous run failed with `native_controller_recovery_missing_evidence:runner_not_settled`. The new run failed in setup in under a minute with `setup_failed` / `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid` (`executionRecovery: bootstrap`, `providerWorkStarted: false`). The task stayed blocked. Another Retry would fail the same way. #20631 accepted one shape of this refusal (a source that saved only the snapshot its own restore loaded). This task had a different shape. **Expected behavior** A Retry starts. A source whose receipt cannot be verified is not attached, and its saved state stays intact for workspace recovery. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a remote native run fail before provider work and leave a recovery receipt or restore hold that does not verify (for example a receipt on an unsaved reference, a receipt from another epoch, or a saved reference without a receipt). 2. Press Retry on the task. 3. See the new run fail in setup with `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid`. **Paperclip version or commit** Staging deploy that includes `e3bc4ca798`. The gap remains on `master` at `a3b34a9d88`. ## What Changed - `attachPreservedRemoteWorkspaceSnapshots` no longer throws for an unverifiable source. Each of the five refusal shapes now skips the source and logs `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid` with a reason: `receipt_without_reference`, `reference_unreadable`, `receipt_on_unsaved_reference`, `receipt_unverified`, and `receipt_snapshot_missing` (was `remote_workspace_recovery_snapshot_missing`). - `retainRemoteRecoveryAttachments` no longer throws for a retained recovered copy that it cannot verify. It does not publish that copy again. The files stay in the workspace. - The writer check (`remote_workspace_recovery_writer_changed`), the workspace access check, and snapshot read and digest failures still refuse. - `doc/execution-semantics.md` describes the fallback rule. ## Verification - Red on unfixed code: `remote-workspace-recovery-receipt-fallback.test.ts` (moved out of `workspace-recovery-preparation.test.ts` to keep that file under 1,000 lines) "starts a Retry from the newest verified save when a predecessor has %s" (6 shapes: `receipt_without_reference`, `unreadable_reference_with_hold`, `receipt_on_prepared_reference`, `superseded_snapshot_with_hold`, `receipt_from_other_epoch`, `receipt_for_other_run`). All 6 failed with `remote_workspace_recovery_receipt_invalid`. The source is a native run that failed with `runner_not_settled`, and the writer is a Retry (`retryOfRunId`, `taskRetryRequestId`) that follows the real ancestry query. - Green: the same 6 tests pass. They also assert that nothing is attached, and that the source run row, its workspace operations, and its snapshot row are unchanged. - Updated safety tests: the canonical-attachment fault matrix now expects no attachment for receipt faults, and still expects a refusal for a missing or corrupt archive and for a wrong company or task. The retained-history test expects an unverifiable retained copy to be left out of the published list, while verified copies stay published. - `npx vitest run src/services/remote-workspace-recovery-receipt-fallback.test.ts src/services/workspace-recovery-preparation.test.ts`: 91 passed. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2, because a global doc input changed (`doc/execution-semantics.md`). Required CI supplies the broad coverage. - Not verified live on Daytona. I could not read the staging rows for this task: the browser had no free tab. The tests cover every refusal shape of this function, so the exact staging shape is one of them. ## Risks - Previous-release state: the rule reads the same rows as before (run reference, result hold, workspace operations, recovery actions, snapshots). Rows that earlier releases saved carry forward. No migration. A blocked task recovers on its next Retry or wake. - A Retry can now start without files from an unverifiable source. Those files are not lost: the source's snapshot, restore hold, receipts and recovery action stay unchanged, and workspace recovery still owns them. The skip is logged with a named reason. - A retained copy that fails verification is dropped from the published list. Its directory stays in the workspace and is no longer retired automatically. - A missing or corrupt snapshot archive still refuses. A permanently lost archive therefore still blocks attach. This PR does not change that. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). Extended reasoning enabled. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>