mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Plugins receive committed runtime events without polling. > - The delivery test checks that an independent writer is visible after commit. > - Startup baseline callbacks can still arrive during that transaction. > - A total callback count mixes startup work with the event under test. > - This pull request checks the transaction's specific event ID instead. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The runtime-delivery test failed during #16604 verification. It expected one callback before an independent transaction committed, but received two. The test waits for a total callback count derived before startup baseline delivery is known to be complete. An older baseline event can arrive during the transaction and fail that assertion. The failing test and delivery implementation are unchanged from master. This PR isolates the test-only correction from #16604. **Expected behavior** The event created by the independent transaction is absent from delivered callbacks before commit. That exact event arrives after commit. Other committed startup callbacks can arrive at any time. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start lifecycle delivery with startup events still pending. 2. Begin an independent agent update after the expected callback count is first reached. 3. Let a baseline callback arrive before that transaction commits. 4. The old global-count assertion fails even though the transaction's event is not delivered early. **Additional context** Scoped maintenance follow-up for #16604. No runtime behavior or feature files change here. #16605 remains a draft without review requests. ## What Changed - Read the new journal event ID inside the independent writer's transaction. - Assert that this ID is not delivered before commit. - Wait for that same ID after commit and check its company, resource, and type. - Remove the total callback-count assumption. - Wait for the company startup baseline, its acknowledgments, and coordinator idleness. Flush earlier listener notifications with a barrier, then wait for that barrier wake to settle before the independent write. ## Verification - The earlier full feature run passed 821/822 tests and failed this exact count assertion with two callbacks instead of one. That failure remains recorded in #16604. - The failing test file is byte-identical on the reviewed feature head and master. Neither the profile-replacement correction nor this PR changes the delivery implementation. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-runtime-hooks.test.ts`: all 17 tests pass with the event-ID assertion. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: passed. - Standard Greptile initially returned 4/5: startup delivery could still hide a missing independent wake. The correction adds observable startup acknowledgment, listener flushing, and coordinator idleness. All 17 runtime-hook tests and server typechecking pass with it. A negative control drops runtime notifications while forwarding the barrier and fails the after-commit delivery assertion; startup work cannot mask that loss. - `git diff --check` and the full PR diff scan for secrets and personal data passed. - Full local build and repository-wide tests were not run for this test-only correction. At `714a74bf0991617c9ad85ce17bae22c533d1ed22`, hosted CI run 39295664656 passed: all 55 checks succeeded, with two optional Storybook checks skipped. Standard Greptile returned 5/5, the security scan passed, all review threads are resolved, and the branch is mergeable against master. The tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled plugin callbacks; live provider behavior is not qualified. ## Risks Test-only change. The commit boundary assertion remains: the new event ID must be absent inside the transaction and present after commit. Existing startup callbacks no longer count as early delivery of a different event. Runtime notification and retry behavior are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and testing. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## 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>