mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
553a004926
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and should become idle when it owes no background work. > - The attention feed archives old pending approvals under the existing 90-day policy. > - The server rebuilds the feed on each maintenance tick, even when approval state has not changed. > - Some approvals have never been read, so retention rows alone cannot define the work. > - Approval records and committed eligibility changes define the real deadline and wake triggers. > - This PR gives approval retention its own deadline worker and reuses the existing retention and archive-delivery contracts. > - The approval lane stops idle scans while other attention sources remain separate migration work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Stacked on #17490. This PR owns approval retention only. Archive notification delivery is already separated in #17475. Other attention-source retention and remaining recurring server duties remain in the stack inventory. The related-PR search found no overlapping approval-retention worker migration. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Automatic archival of old pending approvals from attention. **Current behavior** The shared maintenance tick builds the attention feed for each active company. That query discovers pending approvals and materializes retention records before checking their age. An unchanged or empty approval source is read repeatedly. **Proposed behavior** Reconstruct eligible approvals at startup. Schedule the earliest approval activity timestamp plus 90 days. Wake after committed changes to approvals, links, issue visibility, company activity, or retention controls. Stop scheduling when no eligible approval remains. Archive records through the existing version checks, audit writes, and notification outbox. **Reason and benefit** Idle approval retention should generate no recurring SQL. Unseen approvals still need eventual archival. A stale candidate must not archive an approval that was resubmitted while the worker waited for its source lock. **Breaking changes** None intended. The archive age, eligibility, keep controls, audit, and notification policy remain. Normal attention reads still include approvals. No Cloud sleep blocker is relaxed. ## What Changed - Restrict tool-review signals to their existing terminal transition owners (approve/reject/cancel). Creation/link/revision/resubmit signal retention only. - Coalesce retention notifications under one thirty-second aggregate read budget. Known deadlines still preempt it; no notification or durable deadline means no scan. - Add a bounded approval-retention worker. It uses the shared deadline coordinator and reads pending approvals directly. - Share first-linked-issue ordering and execution visibility through `approval-visibility.ts`, used by both the feed and worker. Preserve actor-specific read filtering and locked archival rechecks. - Materialize unseen approvals on demand inside manual keep/archive/revive transactions. Use the saved activity timestamp and existing versioned state; retain company scoping and rollback on failure. - Add awaited pre-write signals to approval, budget, tool, link, visibility, company, and retention mutation owners. Preserve outer transaction ownership; keep provider calls outside SQL wrappers. - Narrow retention inputs to the source fields the existing service uses. Signal materialization only for inserted or changed state so unchanged reads converge. - Exclude approval collection from the maintenance feed before its query. Other source kinds remain in that sweep. - Add the pending-only approval deadline index with concurrent, idempotent creation. Keep the five newest migration snapshots. - Add real-Postgres lifecycle tests and startup wiring tests. Enable validated external test databases for existing attention and budget suites. - Document producer coverage, quiet conditions, recovery and remaining scope in `doc/idle-approval-retention.md` and the stack ledger. ## Verification Current test revision: `dd844f4e8cbbf1db681a774dc31cd552301bef48`, followed by docs-only `3efda33812`, which received both 5/5 reviews and passing CI. This candidate normally integrates landed Grok `2adcde162e`. All runtime and acceptance-test sources are byte-identical to that tested/reviewed tree; only four independent Runner E2E accounting files and the ledger differ. Migration 0392 and the parent journal prefix are unchanged. Local checks are reused for their unchanged source; fresh final-head CI and reviews are required against master. This remains the approval-retention duty. - **315 cases pass** across eight complete suites: approval retention/service, attention, decision retention, budgets, tool gateway, server startup and scoped deadlines. All 30 real-PostgreSQL lifecycle cases pass. Server production typecheck and build pass. - **Four regressions failed before repair**: unseen young keep/archive/revive returned 404; the manual keep rollback case could not reach its update. They now pass. A failed keep update leaves no retention row or audit; retry succeeds with one audit. - Both linked-issue orders are checked against the feed: hidden first/visible later is excluded; visible first/hidden later remains eligible. The feed and worker use the same owner query, with actor read filtering preserved. - Generated concurrent/idempotent migration `0392_small_frightful_four.sql` adds only the pending approval index. Every historical parent SQL migration and all 390 parent journal entries are unchanged. Five generated snapshots remain (0388–0392). Schema drift, migration safety/numbering and actual fresh apply/replay on five isolated PostgreSQL databases pass. - Existing precision, transaction, drain/resume, failure fairness and shutdown tests remain. Earlier transaction-stub, budget-import, diagnostic-client and CI failures are recorded in the owning audit and stack ledger; later passes do not erase them. - Three additional real regressions failed before the wake repair: ordinary mutations emitted tool-review signals in both resolution cases, and sequential tenant writes caused repeated global reads. Tests now prove terminal approve/reject/cancel signals and one aggregate reconciliation per thirty-second window with a different company's pending approval retained. The aggregate budget is stricter than a separate per-company budget and matches the old default cadence; known deadlines preempt it. - The initial coalescing fixture expected the concrete pending-work hold to clear before reconciliation; it now preserves that hold and measures SQL. The first broad repair passed 313 cases but failed the existing parked-review cancel case. The original cancel producer is restored; all 315 now pass without weakening assertions. At old head `5991f257bb`, security was action-required and Greptile returned service error `8fb1835c-e564-476b-b802-d5be164ea915`. Fresh repaired-head results are required, not assumed. Commands: server Vitest for `approval-retention-work`, `approvals-service`, `attention-service`, `decision-retention-service`, `budgets-service`, `tool-gateway-service`, `server-startup-feedback-export`, `scoped-deadline-work`; server typecheck/build; DB snapshot drift, migration checks and fresh apply/replay. Fresh exact-head Greptile/Ponytail and CI remain merge gates. No full local repository suite or deployed host suspension/cost claim is made. Earlier stack verification below is historical evidence at the explicitly named revisions, not this head's acceptance: Approved delegated Test-tab calls now evaluate caller and target policies in the existing claim transaction. Real HTTP regressions first showed a missing caller charge and shared-limit self-rejection. All 78 connection-management cases and 92 gateway cases now pass on the owning branch, along with server production typechecking. All 78 connection-management cases also pass at combined tip `d25f830db89c1623bff3547bfc68015c1c66e0cf`. The three new cases cover shared charges, separate charges, rollback on denial, duplicate approval, and rejection of a later authorized call. Intermediate counter/identity fixture failures and a reused-database Slack collision are recorded in [the owning audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/20557d2c3dd0949c734eaa8095fd78b9b07d7fd5/doc/idle-approved-tool-recovery.md#delegated-test-tab-admission-after-policy-changes). The earlier combined checks below remain evidence for their stated revisions. Current-head CI and review remain required. Earlier published head: `20557d2c3dd0949c734eaa8095fd78b9b07d7fd5`. This remains a single-duty PR stacked on #17490. - Integrated pinned master `8548173fc9efdc0fa07644fb92dcc0b6851a95e5` with normal merges. Every branch passed generated-schema checks and its target-branch migration-order gate. Existing SQL is unchanged; the 25 stack migrations follow master’s new migration. - Duty-specific producer coverage, lifecycle tests, and earlier failure records: [2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/76a49810c7ff403ae7720bef0d453747bd844731/doc/plans/2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md). - Combined tip `51e6cbe67979b55b340ea9f0f434c5b5c682ccd6`: **355 startup/cancellation/recovery/dispatch/preservation tests**, **75 connection-management tests**, and production server typechecking pass. These combined checks do not mean every intermediate PR independently ran the full repository suite. - Real master-to-stack database upgrade passes: **379 unchanged prior migration receipts plus 25 new migrations**, with the gateway responsibility fixture preserved. - Owning-branch checks: 84 runner installation/settlement cases plus runner typechecking and generated TypeScript/Rust profile agreement; 253 GitHub review workflow cases. Stop-attribution and held-worker readiness regressions failed before their fixes. - Failure accounting: the initial combined run passed 349 cases and failed six idle assertions in a reused preservation database containing old cancelled runs. Repeating the combined command with a fresh preservation database passed. Earlier invalid project selection, merge import/type errors, and the interrupted full local suite are not counted as passing checks. - **Latest-head CI and review remain required.** Prior CI findings include GitHub idle observation, route teardown, attention cleanup, touch-picker E2E, workspace health, and voice-cleanup timing; local passes do not erase those failures. No full local repository-suite, deployed sleep, fleet cost, or live Copilot qualification claim is made. ## Risks - Signals cover the application database owner and its child pools. Independent SQL writers and other active processes need an explicit wake integration. Startup reconstructs committed durable state. - The source row lock prevents stale approval-activity archival. It does not add cross-table serializability for concurrent link, visibility, or company-policy changes. - Newly changed eligibility can wait up to the thirty-second notification window, matching the former default maintenance cadence. Saved deadlines still preempt; no new idle polling is added. - Failed records retain recovery debt. Bounded cursor progress lets later rows proceed without dropping failures. - The shared retention transaction now groups materialization and activity-version updates. Existing attention and retention consumers are tested against PostgreSQL. - Kept, archived, resolved or inactive-company approvals can become quiet, but their supported mutations must retain their wake notifications. - The local scheduler cannot wake stopped compute. This PR neither adds approval deadlines to Cloud's external alarm contract nor claims measured host or database suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window were not exposed. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>