mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-12 18:06:11 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
63f3aa2dbf
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs retain their provider conversation across server restarts. > - A dead runner can restore a Codex conversation after its active turn is lost. > - The old recovery path synthesized a failed task result from that interruption. > - The task then required operator action even though its conversation and workspace were available. > - This pull request preserves the interruption cause and uses the admitted restart attempt for one continuation in the same conversation. > - The agent can reconcile unfinished actions and complete the current request without resending the original task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12845 added native restart recovery. #15042 covers admission during shutdown. #14796 covers legacy shutdown recovery. This change covers a lost native Codex turn after successful conversation restoration. **What happened?** After a server restart killed the local runner, Paperclip restored the saved Codex thread. Runnerd found that the old turn was no longer active. It synthesized a failed terminal and a needs-review result from the last progress message. The transport also discarded the terminal error when it reconstructed thread history. The task failed instead of continuing. **Expected behavior** After proving that the old process stopped and admitting a bounded recovery attempt, resume the current request in the same conversation. Preserve the workspace. Inspect unfinished actions before proceeding. Keep real provider failures, accepted results, intentional stops, unknown unreconciled effects, and exhausted attempts subject to their existing rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a local native Codex run and leave its turn active. 2. Kill the isolated runner and provider processes, as can happen during a server restart. 3. Restore the same provider thread with no active turn. 4. Observe the synthetic task failure. The new real-process regression reproduces this boundary with a scripted provider. ## What Changed - Record an explicit recoverable process-loss cause without inventing a task result. - Preserve terminal errors and prior turns in reconstructed provider history. Recover the authoritative saved result when adopting an accepted continuation. - Send one continuation in the same conversation for an admitted dead-runner recovery. Require reconciliation of unfinished commands and external actions. - Persist the interrupted terminal before submission and retain the existing recovery marker across another controller loss. - Keep provider attempt limits, terminal failures, and intentional cancellation behavior. - Add red/green regressions, real process-kill coverage, restart checkpoint coverage, and retry-budget coverage. Document the behavior and run-log evidence. ## Verification - Red: the new native runtime regression rejected with `NativeProviderTerminalFailure` on the original code; the Rust restore regression found a missing recovery cause. - Red/green: if restoring the conversation fails and replacement is allowed, the replacement receives the full task and fresh-session handoff. Both prepared and legacy execution inputs are covered. - Red: a second controller crash after the provider accepted the continuation caused an extra `turn/start`. The regression now proves there are exactly two submissions total: the original and its continuation. - Green: focused runtime, backend, driver recovery, and real-process restart suites (207 tests). After the final history/result changes, driver recovery and real-process restart suites passed again (36 tests). - Green: complete Codex transport suite (186 tests), server restart classification/database integration suites (34 tests), and Rust Codex provider suite (92 passed, 2 ignored). - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on `60141e649`. The subsequent replacement-prompt guard passed the Runner TypeScript check and the complete runtime plus process-restart suites (148 tests). - Local full-suite attempt: `pnpm test:run` reported two failures in the untouched chat integration suite. Both passed individually, and the complete chat suite passed on rerun (1,063 tests). After all remote test shards passed, the duplicate serial local run was stopped with SIGINT; it is not claimed as a full local-suite pass. - Latest-head CI (`b1297dcd4`): 55 successful checks and 4 intentionally skipped checks, including all test shards, typecheck, build, native Runner verification, end-to-end tests, and canary dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37405346303). - Greptile: 5/5 on the latest head, with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. - The process tests use the real runner binary and a scripted Codex provider. They do not call a live model service. ## Risks - This changes local Codex recovery after process loss. A continuation can execute more work in the retained conversation. Its prompt requires state inspection before repeating an uncertain action; the system does not replay tool calls. - Recovery shares the existing three-attempt budget and one-shot continuation marker. Real failures and older unmarked failed checkpoints are not reopened. - No database migration or API change is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. - Capabilities: reasoning, source inspection, tool use, code editing, code execution, and test analysis. ## 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>