mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
686893636d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Workspace recovery saves the files of a run whose copy-back failed, and it holds the shared workspace until the save is done > - #20295 re-arms a save that was exhausted with `agent_stop_unconfirmed`, so the run's stop is proven again and the files are saved without a person > - On staging, four holds of this shape were never re-armed. Their runs ended six days ago, their sandbox leases are released with a provider stop receipt, and the servers that ran them were replaced many times. Their tasks stay blocked, and so do the parent tasks that wait for them > - The finished coordinator of each run still names a lease owner whose lease lapsed. Discovery treats that owner as "waiting for the abandoned-owner settlement", but that settlement handles only observed (unfinished) coordinators. Nothing ever releases the owner, so the worker never selects the hold, the re-arm refuses it, and the attempt's stop check refuses it too > - This pull request makes a lapsed owner of a finished coordinator count as stopped. The re-arm releases it in the same transaction, and then the new attempt proves the sandbox stop and saves the files as #20295 designed > - The benefit is that these holds settle on the worker's next pass after deploy, without a migration and without an administrator ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20295 **What happened?** An exhausted workspace save (`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, last failure `agent_stop_unconfirmed`) stayed blocked for six days. The task showed "Paperclip tries again automatically", but no re-arm was ever recorded (no `stopProofRecovery` marker, no `issue.workspace_recovery_rearmed` activity), and the shared workspace stayed held by the failed run. **What did you expect to happen?** The recovery worker re-arms the save once the run is provably over, saves the dirty files, and frees the workspace so the task and its parent can continue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Exhaust a workspace save with `agent_stop_unconfirmed` (one attempt, window spent). 2. Leave a lease owner on the run's `terminal_failure` coordinator with an expired lease (or no expiry), as a finalizer pass of a replaced server does. 3. Run the workspace recovery worker. `nextWorkspaceRecoveryAt` returns null, discovery does not select the hold, and `rearmExhaustedStopProof` refuses it. ## What Changed - `workspace-recovery-stop-proof.ts`: add `lapsedFinishedCoordinatorOwner` and `releaseLapsedCoordinatorOwner`. A lease owner on a finished coordinator (committed, terminal failure, applied) whose lease lapsed, or that has no expiry, does not block `sourceRunProvablyOver`. The stop-proof re-arm clears that owner with a compare-and-swap in its locked transaction, and records `releasedLapsedOwner` in the marker and the activity. - `workspace-recovery-capture-policy.ts`: the capture-policy re-arm uses the same rule, because it shares the same check and discovery clause. - `workspace-recovery-fallback-discovery.ts`: the discovery clause still waits for the abandoned-owner settlement for a stale owner of an unfinished coordinator, but it no longer excludes a hold whose finished coordinator has a lapsed owner. A live lease still defers the re-arm to its expiry. - `system-recovery-state.ts`: add `FINISHED_COORDINATOR_PHASES`. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the rule. - Tests: two red-then-green regressions in the staging shape (an expired finalizer lease, and an owner without an expiry saved by an older release), one strictness case (a live lease on a finished coordinator keeps the hold and is not released), and the existing stale-owner case now uses an observed coordinator, which still waits for the abandoned-owner settlement. ## Verification - Red before the fix: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/workspace-recovery-stop-proof.test.ts` failed the two new staging-shape cases (`nextWorkspaceRecoveryAt` returned null: the worker was never woken for the hold). - Green after the fix: `workspace-recovery-stop-proof.test.ts` and `workspace-recovery-capture-policy.test.ts` pass (15 tests). The staging-shape cases assert that the hold is re-armed, the save completes, the dirty files are saved, the workspace hold is free, and the lapsed owner is released. - `pnpm verify`: exit 2 (broader verification required, because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input). Focused suites pass: `workspace-recovery-stop-proof`, `workspace-recovery-capture-policy`, `workspace-recovery-fallback`, `workspace-recovery-retry-copyback` (113 tests). Required CI supplies the broad coverage. - Staging evidence (read-only GET requests): the run is `failed`, finished six days ago, `controllerLeaseExpiresAt` is null, its only lease is `released` with `cleanupStatus: success`, a `stopped` termination receipt and a stop-and-retain receipt. The action's evidence has no re-arm marker, and four holds of the same shape were not touched after #20295 was deployed. ## Risks - Previous-release story: rows saved by earlier releases carry the lapsed owner and no marker. They are selected and re-armed on the worker's first pass after deploy. No migration. - Strictness stays where an owner could be live: a live lease on any coordinator defers the re-arm to its expiry, and a stale owner of an unfinished (observed) coordinator still waits for the abandoned-owner settlement, which proves its controller stopped. The new attempt still requires a provider stop receipt for the allocation before it reads files. - Clearing a lapsed owner matches the existing token-lease contract: an expired finalizer or cleanup lease is free for the next claim, and a holder's later write fails its token compare-and-swap. - Low risk otherwise: the change is limited to the two exhausted-hold re-arms and their discovery clause. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use (shell, code editing, browser GET reads) in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>