mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
60a99307b3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A web-server replacement must preserve work and let completed cleanup become idle. > - Several task turns can use one remote sandbox through recorded lease handoffs. > - The last owner can destroy that sandbox while an earlier owner still waits for its own termination receipt. > - A completed agent-file cleanup can also retain a retry deadline from a competing callback. > - This pull request resolves confirmed destruction through the existing handoff contract and settles obsolete cleanup retries. > - The benefit is correct cleanup recovery without deleting history or weakening sleep checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18554. Related work: #14695 handles warm agent-file ownership; #13291 handles interrupted conversation continuation. This PR fixes cleanup recovery after confirmed final destruction. It does not change provider process reuse or start a new run. **What happened?** After ten qualified staging web-server replacements, a bounded database-idle check failed. Completed native runs still owned pending agent-file cleanup. Normal workspace archive confirmed final sandbox destruction. An earlier lease in the same recorded handoff chain remained unresolved. Two completed cleanup receipts also kept stale retry deadlines. **Expected behavior** Resolve an earlier owner's cleanup only when the complete recorded handoff chain leads to an exact provider-confirmed destruction receipt. Clear a retry when its cleanup is already complete. Keep real or uncertain work pending. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a remote run, reuse its sandbox for a second run, then archive the completed workspace. 2. Recover agent-file collection for the first run after the final lease confirms destruction. 3. Separately, reconstruct a completed cleanup receipt that still has a retry deadline. 4. Observe that both records remain unfinished without this fix. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on `1a6017d6460267ad89d7e1784e2b521c28d8e9ac`. The changed source was unchanged in master `97c4dc969e13364464765ffbde74955005bf44d3`, which is this branch's base. **Deployment mode** A managed ephemeral web server with PostgreSQL, object storage and a remote sandbox. Regression tests use local PostgreSQL and no live provider or model calls. ## What Changed - Resolve remote termination at read time through the existing strict reusable-lease handoff validator. Require one final owner and a valid destruction receipt. Preserve historical lease rows. - Use the same proof in agent-directory cleanup and remote-stop inspection. Keep stopped, ambiguous, broken and cross-company chains blocked. - Reconcile completed cleanup receipts with stale retry deadlines through the existing deadline worker. Compare the receipt before clearing a deadline. - Add recovery, refusal, restart quietness and concurrent-obligation regressions. - Document the cleanup contract and preserve deployment evidence, failed checks and remaining acceptance work in the existing plan. ## Verification - Both owning service suites passed 169 tests before the final receipt comparison was added. - The seven-case selection passed again after the release-race review fix: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-directory-working-copies.test.ts -t 'stale retry|destroyed successor chain|stale-deadline settlement'`. - Repository-wide `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on final review fix `7935d99bed`. The full `pnpm test:run` is still running. Latest-head CI has 55 successful checks, three skips, and one neutral review result. Greptile is 5/5. The Paperclip reviewer’s race finding is fixed; its optional query-deduplication suggestion is documented and the fresh lock-boundary checks are retained. - The reviewer identified an early return after a lost receipt comparison. The strengthened race regression failed before the fix and passed afterward: release now acts on the returned authoritative row, completes the new cleanup obligation, and preserves canonical files. - The first focused attempt failed the new stale-deadline test because the public release guard skipped settlement. That guard was fixed. The original failure is retained. A sandboxed typecheck could not fetch pnpm signature metadata; the normal network-enabled command passed without changing verification policy. - Prior deployed evidence: ten Railway replacements, 12,521 reads, 1,566 verified saves, 34 matching file hashes, no HTTP failures, actual browser reconnects of 1.16–1.29 seconds, and one remote execution retained across replacement. Two harness false alarms were separately adjudicated without redeploying those steps. - That deployment evidence predates this PR. Current-image natural idle, automatic sleep/wake browser return and the isolated production canary remain unverified. Production has not changed. ## Risks - Cleanup authority must not cross a company or allocation boundary. The existing validator checks the entire recorded chain; stopped successors and unexpected owners remain unresolved. - Confirmed destruction permits no-save cleanup. It does not claim that uncollected agent files were saved. - Read-time resolution adds a scoped lease-history query only for expired reusable leases without direct termination proof. No new recurring worker or polling cadence is added. - The deadline update must not erase new work. It requires the same cleanup receipt and preserves concurrent changes. - No schema or public API changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and test tools. The precise backend revision and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>