mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
0934b834c4
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and preserves its workspace files. > - Online migration captures local files and publishes remote workspace authority. > - Each capture verifies encrypted readback, restores the archive and compares the current source. > - A cohort kept every completed parent payload until the whole cohort published. > - A larger cohort could retain many complete copies while later members still worked. > - This pull request releases only finished parent payloads before a capture worker starts another member. > - Nested-child proof, final fresh checks and atomic publication keep their existing owners. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #20418, #20437, #20441. **What happened?** A cohort retained each member's capture archive, verified archive, comparison archive and restored tree until atomic publication. The capture worker limit did not limit that retained parent data. **Expected behavior** Release completed parent payloads once their consumers finish. Keep files that a later publication check still needs. **Steps to reproduce** Run the added held-peer regression against the previous owner. It completes one parent, holds a later member and finds all four completed parent paths still present. ## What Changed - Release three named parent archives and the restored tree after a successful online cohort capture, before that worker takes another member. - Keep parent scratch roots and all nested-child verification areas. Keep every final fresh child and publication check. - Retain payloads for archived repository intents. Use the existing writable-tree cleanup for read-only restored directories. - Add real filesystem regressions for early release, retained child proof, late child mutation and the final archived-intent path check. Update the source-fence guide. This branch incorporates the final #20441 owner and both distinct saved-relative-path regressions. Its scratch-specific production change is nine added lines and one removed line. Single imports and saved journal/archive formats stay unchanged. ## Verification - Canonical Node24 preflight passed. The Runner build came from the content cache. After the current-master merge, the preflight checked 1,674 inputs and 1,817 outputs and found unchanged build inputs. Plugin SDK prerequisites passed. - Genuine RED on the unchanged #20441 owner: one held-peer case failed at four retained payload paths; the archived-intent control passed. The run took21.14s, with221 unrelated cases intentionally unselected. The first sandbox-restricted setup attempt hit DNS errors and was stopped; the normal network-qualified preflight then passed. - Initial treatment: four selected PostgreSQL/filesystem cases passed in38.61s, with219 intentionally unselected. The held peer observes released parent payloads and retained child areas. A later child mutation still refuses the whole cohort and publishes no authority or activity. - The archived-intent control observes all parent payloads at the actual final saved-relative-path check. The changed path refuses publication and keeps task/repository state intact. This exercises its actual singleton owner; archived-only sources do not enter the online cohort API. - After a normal merge of current master and the final #20441 test, the five affected cases and server TypeScript passed. No full local matrix was repeated. Initial CI failed the inherited recovered-upload assertion because the new retention test leaked its archive and filesystem spies. That case passed alone but failed in the adjacent three-case sequence (two pass, one fail); scoped `finally` cleanup made the same sequence pass three of three in17.15s, with191 unrelated cases intentionally unselected. No upstream assertion or production code changed. Server TypeScript passed again. All required [CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42746586511) passed on final normal-merge head `604c0f67bf7282ecd3f6e5e5da1c9d8637ef70cc` (56 success, four skipped and one neutral; no pending or failing checks). The previously failing server4/12 passed in10m23s. Fresh Greptile is5/5 on that exact head with no open threads. The merge resolves the duplicate #20441 squash insertion; both tested owner and test files are byte-for-byte identical to repair head `b5c8eed82b6a676985e1a8af785e5df2ae3be2ce`. The prior head received [Greptile5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20447#issuecomment-6757435885); its archived-cohort coverage warning was [answered using the actual public admission boundary](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20447#discussion_r4520641017). - `git diff --check` passed. No hosted cleanup, migration, provider action or deployment was performed. ```sh node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs --skip-rust-debug pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps node --import ./cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs packages/db/src/test-postgres-command.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/remote-workspace-cohort-migration.test.ts server/src/services/remote-workspace-migration.test.ts -t 'releases completed parent payload|retains archived intent payload|shares the merged child verifier|rechecks the current archived repository intent path at publication' pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit ``` ## Risks - This reduces retained parent data. It does not establish a total disk bound. Active capture/encryption/readback files and retained child areas still need measured capacity. - Cleanup failure uses the existing worker abort and peer-join path before publication. Original source files, uploaded objects and journals remain intact. - Archived repository intents still need their restored payload at publication. Those payloads stay retained. No capture limit, budget or integrity guard changes. - Saved operations and archive identities carry forward unchanged. Resume still uses the existing full source and authenticated object checks. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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 - [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>