mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
52d120f68d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every release publishes a batch of npm packages and then waits for each one to become visible before continuing > - npm accepts a publish immediately but exposes it later, so that wait exists to keep a release from continuing past a package nobody can install yet > - Today that wait was too short twice in a row, and each timeout aborted the release with the batch half-published > - Version numbers are derived from what is already on npm, so every retry moves to a new number and meets the same lag > - Two canary attempts burned two versions this way and shipped nothing > - This pull request raises the per-package budget from ten minutes to thirty > - The benefit is that ordinary registry lag costs waiting instead of a failed, half-published release ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. The problem, in the bug report format: **What happened** `publish_canary` failed twice in a row with the batch half-published: ``` Warning: npm accepted @paperclipai/server@2026.914.0-canary.2, but the version did not become registry-visible. Error: stopping release: npm did not publish and expose @paperclipai/server@2026.914.0-canary.2 ``` The version was accepted at 17:49:09 and became visible at 18:04:29 — about five minutes after the poll gave up. `shared`, `db` and `adapter-utils` published at that version; `server`, `paperclip-runner` and the root package did not. **Expected behavior** Ordinary registry propagation delay costs the release some waiting, not a failure. A package that becomes visible after 15 minutes must not abort the batch because of the old 10-minute wait. Longer registry outages can still leave a partial batch. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Publish any channel while npm is propagating slowly. 2. A package takes longer than `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS * NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` to become visible. 3. The release aborts, that version is half-published, and the retry picks a new version number and meets the same lag. **Paperclip version or commit** Present on master. Observed on 2026-09-14 across canary runs in workflow run 34869494325. ## What Changed - Increase npm visibility checks from 60 to 180, retaining the 10-second delay: about 30 minutes per package. - Increase canary, nightly, beta, and stable publish job timeouts from 90 to 150 minutes. - Add offline regression tests using the workflow's actual settings. They cover the observed 15-minute 20-second delay, immediate visibility, exhausted retries, and job timeout sizing. - Load the access router in test setup so its cold transform does not consume the first permission test's 10-second timeout. The permission assertions are unchanged. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`: 14 passed. - `pnpm run test:release-registry`: 129 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-routes-permissions-upgrade.test.ts`: 3 passed. - Regression proof in temporary fixtures: restoring 60 attempts fails the observed-delay test; restoring 90-minute jobs fails the timeout-budget test. - [CI run 34916632804](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34916632804): all jobs passed, including typecheck/release registry, build, all general and serialized server shards, browser tests, runner verification, and canary dry run. The PR has 31 successful checks and two expected Storybook skips at `a27f5e896`. - [Previously failing serialized shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34916632804/job/104215809616): all three access-route permission tests passed in CI after preloading the router. - Greptile's final review is 5/5 with no outstanding findings. Both review threads are resolved. - Local limits: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` stop at the runner package because this machine has no Rust `cargo` executable. The duplicate full local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted while the complete CI matrix ran. Targeted local results are listed above; full validation is from CI. The previous CI failures were unrelated to npm propagation: - [PR review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34891770396) required a test file for this fix. - [Serialized server shard 3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34891773736/job/104136392196) timed out in the first access-route permission test at 10 seconds. The other two tests in that file passed. - The canary dry run passed in that same CI run. ## Risks Low risk. Production behavior changes only in release waiting budgets. - Polling exits as soon as npm exposes the version, so healthy publishes do not wait longer. - An unavailable version now takes about 30 minutes to report. Polls remain bounded and still fail the release on exhaustion. - The 150-minute jobs leave roughly 30 minutes for setup/build plus four full polling windows. npm command runtime and later release steps also consume that budget; a broader outage can still interrupt a batch. - The permission-test change moves module loading into a bounded setup hook; it does not relax authorization assertions. - No schema changes or operational migrations. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, run through Claude Code with tool use and code execution. - OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, for the CI follow-up. Context-window size is 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 — targeted checks listed above; full validation passed in CI - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — workflow comments and verification details - [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>