mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
cd7f84965c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service delivers issue work to assigned agents. > - Recovery can hand an issue back to its agent while the recovery run is still active. > - The hand-back wake can merge into that active run and disappear when the run exits. > - The stranded-work scan also treats the successful recovery run as proof that the handed-back issue is live. > - This pull request keeps the hand-back wake for follow-up delivery and lets the scan repair a lost wake. > - The benefit is that an assigned issue continues after recovery without manual operator action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This is related to the wake reconciliation work in #8943. **What happened?** A recovery action could hand an assigned issue back from `blocked` to `todo`. The `issue_recovery_action_restored` wake then merged into the recovery run that made the change. The wake disappeared when that run exited. The stranded-work scan did not repair the issue because it treated the successful recovery run as current liveness. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must dispatch the hand-back wake after the recovery run exits. If that delivery is lost, the stranded-work scan must enqueue the assigned `todo` issue again. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a recovery run for an assigned blocked issue. 2. Resolve a recovery action with the `handed_back` outcome. 3. Move the issue to `todo` while the recovery run is still active. 4. Observe that the wake merges into the active run and no new run starts after it exits. 5. Run the stranded-work scan and observe that the successful latest run prevents repair. **Paperclip version or commit** `131d476a7e` **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). The defect is in the core server and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core heartbeat and recovery defect. ## What Changed - Added `issue_recovery_action_restored` to the wake reasons that require follow-up delivery when an issue run is active. - Made the stranded-work scan detect a resolved hand-back that occurred during or after the latest successful run. - Added focused regression tests for the heartbeat coalescing seam and the stranded-work repair shape. - Documented the hand-back liveness guarantee in execution semantics section 9.1. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` passed: 104 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm test:run` passed the server shard (3,095 passed, 2 skipped) and UI shard (3,182 passed). One unrelated CLI test failed because the agent environment exports static AWS credentials. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - `git diff --check` passed. - All GitHub checks passed on commit `8b380e67e6`. - Greptile gave 5/5 confidence with no comments or unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The follow-up rule affects only a recovery hand-back wake that arrives while the same issue already has an active run. - The backstop adds one indexed recovery-action lookup for an assigned `todo` issue whose latest run succeeded. - The timestamp check uses the latest run start time. This includes hand-backs made by that run and later hand-backs, but excludes older resolved actions. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 (`gpt-5`), agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The serving context-window size is not exposed to the agent. ## 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>