mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-19 10:36:26 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
676d3ec8d4
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip contributors wait for CI before delivering changes. > - Build still finishes last after #16460. > - CI already downloads the public npm graph while the build runs. > - Bundled-package preparation ignores that cache and downloads the same archives again. > - Reuse the existing cache and overlap independent runtime checks while preserving fresh installs, integrity, offline lifecycle and admission verification. > - Measure staging and the full workflow separately. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16460 and #16434. This is a focused follow-up to merged #16460, now based directly on master. **Current behavior:** The Build workflow warms `PAPERCLIP_PUBLIC_INSTALL_NPM_CACHE`, but `startBundledInstalls` inherits the host's default npm cache. Server staging took 31.17 seconds in the latest passing run, before packing and the clean consumer install. **Proposed behavior:** Pass the verifier environment, including the explicitly configured warm cache, to the three existing staging children. Without an explicit shared cache, keep the usual producer npm configuration. **Alternatives considered:** Copying an installed dependency tree would bypass normal fresh installation. Adding jobs would add setup cost. This change reuses only npm's integrity-checked download cache. It does not remove coverage or change product behavior and does not overlap a roadmap feature. Open PR title search found no equivalent cache wiring change. ## What Changed - Initialize the existing consumer cache before package staging and expose it to producer npm only when explicitly configured. - Pass that environment to the existing bundled-install children. - Extend the child orchestration check to verify cache propagation and document the cache boundary. - Start Pi setup after the offline lifecycle, in its own download sandbox, while Codex and Grok probes run in separate offline sandboxes. Join successful Pi setup before lock verification and Pi admission. Name and clean up only the verifier-owned setup container. ## Verification - 33 focused public-install, closure and child-orchestration tests pass on Node 24.21.0. - A real server dependency staging experiment used `prepare-bundled-package.mjs`, its actual manifests, provider overrides and release patches. Built application payloads were omitted from this dependency-only measurement. - Cold cache: **16.139s**. After the actual CI warm-up script: **6.980s**. A fully warm producer cache took **6.127s**. These are local sequential measurements, not a CI wall-clock claim; filesystem warmth and registry timing vary. - All **28,329 files/links**, including both lockfiles, were byte-identical between the cold output and the actual-workflow-warm output. - The warm-up itself took 49.631s; CI already runs it during Rust restore/build. This change adds no warm-up operation. - First follow-up run [passed all 48 jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38791277425), and Greptile gave the cache-only head 5/5. Server staging fell **31.172s → 17.565s** and total staging **70.169s → 54.869s**. But complete CI was **8m20s**, slower than the parent's 8m04s; longer Codex/Pi probe times outweighed that saving. This is not a full-run speed improvement claim. - The next revision overlaps the independent probes instead of serializing Pi setup behind them. All 46 focused sandbox, staging, closure and process-supervision tests pass, including failed background children, parent exit and cancellation. Pre-retarget head `590873a44` passes all 48 jobs and Greptile 5/5 with no review findings. After #16460 merged, head `fe4f8d38e` incorporates master and retargets this PR directly to master. Its diff remains only four optimization/documentation/test files; 46 focused checks pass again. Fresh full CI and review are pending. The unchanged parent conflict-resolution run passed all 48 jobs in 8m04s: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38789785045. Final paired runs against the same updated master, both on `m7i-flex.xlarge`: | Measurement | Parent #16460 | This PR | | --- | ---: | ---: | | Bundled server staging | 22.220s | 14.202s | | All package staging | 61.277s | 48.304s | | Clean consumer install | 67.617s | 73.490s | | Pi setup remaining wait | 25.428s (serial setup) | 20.719s | | Build job | 385s | 368s | | Build start after workflow creation | 23s | 136s | | Entire workflow, including admission and aggregates | 452s (7m32s) | 552s (9m12s) | [Parent run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38792983313), [final run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38792986392). Build execution improved by **17s (4.4%)** in this pair. The total workflow did **not** improve: it waited 113 seconds longer to start Build, and other lanes/aggregates also contribute. The overlapping setup ran for 25.667s while Codex/Grok took 4.946s, leaving 20.719s to wait. Actual installed Codex, Grok and Pi checks all passed with zero provider calls. These are individual samples with filesystem/network/CPU variance, not a claimed steady-state average. The earlier slower cache-only run is retained above. No tests were removed and no jobs were added. ## Risks Shared-cache contention can reduce the benefit if warm-up is still running. npm handles concurrent content-addressed cache writers and checks integrity; misses still download normally. Two runtime containers can now overlap and contend for host resources; the full CI run measures that tradeoff. They retain separate network policies and per-container bounds. Pi writes only its provider assets and a private receipt; the other probes inspect Codex/Grok. No installed tree, lock, test result or build output is reused. The consumer still starts empty and performs the full lifecycle and runtime checks. Normal unconfigured producer cache behavior is preserved. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, execution and GitHub tools. The serving model suffix and context capacity are not exposed to 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in this PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no private ticket identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (prior head passed; rerunning after master merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations or follow-ups (prior head 5/5; current head pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>