mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 17:33:51 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
989ee668e0
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates AI agents and retains their work across failures. > - A retry can require a new workspace while preserving the failed attempt. > - Core rejects this recovery strategy for provider-owned storage. > - Providers should implement the required outcome using their own storage design. > - This pull request adds a semantic fresh-preparation contract and delegates recovery preparation. > - The benefit is that a supported provider can run a fresh retry without losing prior work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retry that selects `fresh_isolated_workspace` fails with `fresh_workspace_storage_unsupported` for provider-owned storage. **Expected behavior** Core asks a capable provider to prepare new storage and attach verified recovery files. The failed workspace remains intact. **Steps to reproduce** Run a task in a task-capable plugin environment. Let the task fail without a verified workspace preservation receipt. Retry the task so Core selects a fresh attempt. **Paperclip version or commit**6204239cf(rebased on current master). **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with a plugin task environment and managed workspace provider. Search found no duplicate implementation. This branch includes the default-provider changes from #17247 and preserves their source selection behavior. ## What Changed - Define an opt-in fresh-preparation contract with a stable attempt identity and verified recovery file descriptors. - Describe retained-storage and recovery-attachment guarantees without requiring a Git storage layout. - Reserve replacement task bindings with revision checks and keep the failed workspace intact. Projectless and project-backed task environments both replay their stable attempt reservation. - Reconcile an interrupted preparation against its reserved workspace and stable operation identity. - Stage verified recovery archives at stable transfer paths. Delegate attachment materialization to the provider. - Preserve projectless attempt directory identities through later turns and pin the intent into each execution lease. - Protect fresh intent and projectless ownership from caller metadata replacement or injection. ## Verification - SDK workspace-provider tests: 4 passed. - Targeted reservation and task-dispatch tests: 31 passed. - Recovery transfer staging and lifecycle focus: 7 passed. The separate cache-cleanup failure reconciliation case also passed. - After rebasing on current master, 7 focused preparation and ownership cases passed. These cover inherited provider defaults, fresh preparation, stable projectless identity, and authorization denial. - The focused metadata authority regression passed, including forged intent, replacement, and null metadata patches. - Three assembled interrupted task-reservation cases passed: projectless, project with a saved source, and project with a newly selected default source. - Targeted tests use worktree SDK sources. No full local build or typecheck ran. - Local checks remain targeted as requested. Latest-head GitHub CI passed: 54 successful checks, including typecheck, build, server suites, Runner validation, and E2E shards; 2 unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - Greptile reviewed commit73595b0c61at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - Live VM E2E has not run. ## Risks - Existing providers retain their existing behavior. Fresh attempts require explicit version support. - The companion provider implementation must materialize recovery snapshots safely and preserve the old workspace. - Fresh retries require the companion provider implementation. Providers without the version marker fail closed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6.1 (`gpt-6.1-sol`), reasoning and coding tools. The runtime does not expose the context-window limit. ## 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>