mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 11:20:42 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
5cea9c7c0e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their assigned tasks. > - A task pause controls execution without changing task status. > - Resume can remove that pause and request work from eligible assignees. > - The preview counted blocked tasks and former executors as wake targets. > - The release route correctly skipped those targets, so the dialog promised work that did not start. > - Resume also trusted stale pause snapshots after tasks were reopened. > - This PR aligns preview with execution eligibility and rechecks current task state when releasing a pause. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Pause an assigned blocked task, then open Resume. The dialog says that one task will resume and offers to wake one agent. Applying it only removes the pause. The route skips blocked and backlog tasks. A former executor can also inflate the wake count after reassignment. **Expected behavior** The dialog must distinguish removing a pause from starting work. Its wake count must use the current assignees and statuses accepted by the release route. Blocked work must stay blocked. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an assigned blocked task. 2. Choose Pause work, then Resume task. 3. Inspect the wake count and apply Resume work. Related runtime recovery work is tracked separately in #17097 and #17439. This PR does not change remote execution recovery. ## What Changed - Share the resume status list between preview and release. Count only current assignees on todo, in-progress, and in-review tasks for resume wakes. - Explain that Resume removes the pause. Show the existing preview warnings, including tasks that remain idle. - Disable and uncheck the wake option when no agents qualify. Send the same choice to the server. - Reevaluate previously skipped pause members after reopening or releasing another hold. Retain active-pause and unsafe-execution guards. - Add real PostgreSQL and HTTP-route regressions plus browser coverage for both task interfaces. Keep draft, ancestor-pause, and Stop/reconciliation coverage. - Update the task coordination maps. Add an opt-in dedicated test database URL for hosts where embedded PostgreSQL cannot start. ## Verification - Final head `9548eb16736f632cc111a5c13a9a994ec1d95a13`: all 55 completed checks pass, with two optional Storybook checks skipped. [CI 40188094904](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40188094904) passes, including typecheck, build, all general/serialized suites, and all eight E2E shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this commit; the reopened-task finding is fixed and resolved. - Red: the real PostgreSQL regression receives three agents instead of the one eligible current assignee on the original code. - Green: all 27 tree-control service, route, and unit tests pass. They cover current assignees, blocked/backlog exclusions, reopened tasks, company boundaries, remaining pause holds, and execution blockers. - The reopened-task route regression fails on the previous implementation: skipped members never reach preflight/wake, and an unsafe replay releases the hold instead of returning 409. All cases pass with the fix. - Browser: all five applicable cases pass together (90 seconds): blocked-work resume in both interfaces, draft/ancestor-pause cases in both interfaces, and the process Stop/pause/reconciliation/restart/cancel lifecycle. The optional native-runner fixture is skipped locally because its fixture binary is not configured. - All 157 task-page component tests pass on the prior commit; subsequent changes affect the server route and Stop fixture only. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass before rebase, and CI typecheck/build passed on the previous PR commit. Server typecheck passes again after the route fix. The final-head CI run also passes these full checks. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`, and `git diff --check` pass. - Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted but did not complete: this host cannot initialize embedded PostgreSQL, and unrelated workspace-runtime tests timed out. The focused database tests and E2E suite use disposable PostgreSQL 18 instead. All general-test and serialized-test CI shards passed on the previous PR commit; the final-head CI run also passes every test shard. - The first CI run caught the existing Stop test trying to check a disabled wake option for blocked legacy work. It now asserts zero wake targets and retains the no-execution-before-reconciliation checks. - Earlier E2E attempts exposed fixture problems: assignment started the fixture before it was paused, and the classic interface had two matching editor nodes. The fixture now enables dispatch after the hold exists and scopes the final assertion to the task composer. No product assertion was removed. ## Risks Resume preview is a snapshot. The release route still checks current status, assignment, and execution blockers. It does not bypass approval, budget, or recovery gates. Pause, cancel, and restore keep their existing affected-agent semantics. The test database override only accepts a dedicated database name ending in `_test`; it runs migrations before the suite and closes its clients afterward. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, browser control, 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>