mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-13 23:39:21 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
5847f047c7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connection cards let users provide the access an agent needs. > - Users can complete setup in Apps while an earlier card stays pending. > - A stale card can then cancel recovery despite valid existing access. > - This change verifies existing access and expires the obsolete request. > - It records a system outcome and sends one durable continuation. > - Approval, identity, permission, and workspace recovery gates remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An ordinary tool connection request stayed pending after the addressed user connected the service in Apps. A later conversation retry was cancelled with `issue_waiting_for_response`. **Expected behavior** A request expires when the same user and requesting agent already have usable access. The agent gets a durable tool refresh. The system records no new human approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have an agent request a tool connection on an active task. 2. Connect the service through Apps with the addressed user's existing grant, agent install, and allowed tools. 3. Let a conversation run stop and retry. The pending card still blocks the retry on the base branch. Related: #12345 introduced the connection request flow. This fix uses its existing access checks and delivery queue. ## What Changed - Verify company, task ownership, user identity, membership, health, grants, installs, and task tool policy before expiring an ordinary request. - Preserve AI account, channel, additional permission, and upstream provider requests on their existing paths. - Save the system outcome, audit event, and continuation in one transaction. Notify an idle delivery worker when a request commits. - Recheck access and other questions or approvals before delivery, retry, final dispatch, and native projection. Refresh system observations for an authorized replacement account. - Rearm delivery when access changes before provider work starts. Verify the host's admission receipt against execution evidence before allowing retry without a repair incident. - Require the current delivery claim when marking an attempt complete. An old completion cannot overwrite a rearmed continuation. - Add embedded-Postgres regressions for permissions, policy, concurrency, restart, replacement accounts, both dispatch gates, and the delivery race. Keep genuine workspace repair holds blocking. ## Verification - Latest-head connection, wake-context, dispatch, and legacy recovery suites: 124 tests passed. The connection suite includes 44 real-Postgres cases. - Server typecheck passed. Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest head. - `pnpm test:run` was run locally. Its general-server group passed 18,583 tests and failed 20. That long run started before the review fixes, then loaded new test cases against modules transformed before those fixes. The affected latest-head suites pass in a fresh process. - One full-run failure also reproduces on unchanged base commitde9ab8e7e0: native-session-resume's damaged-prior-epoch replacement case. It is outside this change. Full-run groups after general-server did not run because that command stopped on failure. - Apex reviewed commit96b96297f4at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. All latest-head CI gates passed. The branch has no merge conflicts. ## Risks A false readiness result could retire a request too early. The fix reuses the runtime access selection rules, makes no new grants, and rechecks access at delivery. Ordinary expired requests do not authorize continuation. A failed workspace restore still requires repair through the existing gate. No schema migration is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. The session identifies the model family as GPT-6. It does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or context window size. ## 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 (focused suites; full local limitations are listed above) - [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>