mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
585c885168
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online workspace migration archives local files before it changes their storage authority. > - A failed provider session can leave an active board-owned recovery hold over a prepared local source. > - The existing migration owner accepts finalized sources and workspace-export failures. > - It rejects a settled provider-artifact failure even when the prepared source and recovery allocation have complete bindings. > - This PR permits that exact preservation case under the existing source and finalizer locks. > - The remote recovery hold remains active. The archive preserves local bytes and the existing recovery recipe. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19642 and #19805 for the existing online migration and source-closure owners. **What happened?** Online workspace migration rejects a prepared source held by a terminal `runner_remote_provider_artifact_incompatible` recovery. This also blocks another local workspace that shares the Git source. The provider session had executed work. A pre-execution exemption would be unsafe. **Expected behavior** Preserve the local source through the existing immutable archive owner when the board recovery, task version, terminal run, finalizer, and declared allocation all match. Keep the remote recovery action and authority unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a prepared native source and a failed run with provider session and tool events. 2. Set its finalizer to an unowned terminal artifact failure. Add the matching active board recovery and task status version. 3. Remove the local descriptor and inspect or migrate a shared local Git alias. 4. Before this change, the source proof is rejected. The regression fixture reproduces this failure. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `1674902b4f`. The final branch is based on `5a92d53f7d`. ## What Changed - Accept only the matching active board-owned artifact failure with a current task block, no live execution authority, an exact producer fingerprint, and a declared prepared-source allocation. - Include the task version and complete existing source/recovery evidence in publication revalidation. - Lock the proven recovery tasks in sorted company scope before publication checks. A held descendant task produces the existing busy error. - Add a real PostgreSQL regression with 124 tool executions, a missing descriptor, shared Git aliases, immutable download, and cold restore of the local archive. - Add stale, foreign, owned, controlled, malformed, and publication-race rejection cases. - Document that this archive preserves local bytes and the recovery recipe. It does not prove remote export or release the remote hold. ## Verification - Genuine baseline RED: the positive migration regression rejects the source before the production fix. - Focused treatment: 12/12 PostgreSQL cases pass. - Review-race RED: both a selected source and a Git companion published while a descendant recovery task was locked. The corrected tests reject both cases. - Two affected owner suites after the lock repair: 91/91 pass in 23.18 seconds. - Strict server TypeScript check passes after the lock repair. - Module boundaries and `git diff --check` pass. - [Current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42367152081) passes: 56 successful checks, four conditional skips, and one neutral review check. No checks remain pending or failed. - Greptile and Paperclip reviews are both 5/5 on `0a6e6c3ece`, with no open findings. - The first descendant fixture attempt hit the immutable task/privacy guard before it reached the race. The corrected fixture creates that task binding at admission and produces the two genuine REDs described above. ## Risks - A broad classification could let a migration move local authority without a complete recovery recipe. The new branch requires the exact failure, producer, task version, source allocation, and released execution owners. - Evidence can change during upload. Existing locks and full publication revalidation reject those races. - The remote allocation may contain changes absent from the local source. This PR preserves only local bytes and the durable recovery route. It does not mark remote work exported, finalized, or safe to discard. - No schema, provider lifecycle, admission, or polling behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and local code execution. The context window size is 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 - [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>