mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
25b16e65fc
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server prepares a repository, sandbox workspace, and connector access before an agent can reply. > - Existing traces measure large preparation phases but leave important work inside those phases unclear. > - Repository source materialization and Browser Use discovery can do more work than their callers suggest. > - New detail must preserve access checks, run ownership, and the existing work order. > - This pull request adds fixed OpenTelemetry spans inside those operations. > - Operators can use one deployed trace to select the next performance fix. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16419, #16425, #16428. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Startup traces for server workspace preparation, native sandbox synchronization, and connector assignment resolution. **Current behavior** Workspace and connector aggregate spans can take many seconds. The trace does not separate private source cloning, seed reuse, archive work, progress persistence, or each connector resolver. Browser Use resource selection builds the full authorized tool catalog. The configuration and native backend can each resolve connector assignments. **Proposed behavior** Show the awaited work as fixed child spans. Separate discovery queue wait from catalog construction. Preserve the initiating run context when another run releases a scheduler slot. Add no new lifecycle event writes for workspace detail callbacks. **Reason and benefit** Operators need evidence about the hosted critical path before another performance change. These spans distinguish filesystem work, provider transfer, authorization, transaction entry, locks, and reporting overhead. **Breaking changes** None. Authorization, query order, transaction ownership, synchronization, existing progress events, and task results retain their contracts. The change adds opt-in Observability spans under the existing OTLP endpoint gate. ## What Changed - Trace private source directory setup, Git credentials, clone, requested ref, source identity, and checkout publication. - Trace sandbox source capture, seed cache/replay, shallow clone and archive, overlay copy/archive, verification, upload, warm stamps, and descriptor persistence. - Separate existing awaited progress reporting from useful workspace work. Keep new detail callbacks trace-only. - Trace each connector resolver and Browser Use catalog/grant work. Split discovery queueing, descriptor sources, and policy evaluation. - Trace Slack authority, credential reads, catalog synchronization, transaction entry/settlement, and advisory locks. - Update the real filesystem staging trace expectations and the Honeycomb investigation guide. - Add a real scheduler regression for a queued job released by another run. Assert run ownership, parent spans, and exactly one completed queue span. ## Verification - Passed: server and adapter-utils TypeScript checks (`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`). - Passed: 252 checks across 9 focused files. These cover real filesystem staging, native workspace synchronization, trace ownership, endpoint gating, and workspace preparation. - Passed after review: 26 trace-context, tracing-failure, and discovery-scheduler checks across 3 files (these overlap the first run). The new queued-discovery regression fails when context binding is removed and passes after restoration. An initial submillisecond timestamp assertion was replaced with explicit span-completion order to avoid SDK clock precision assumptions. - Passed on implementation commit `0e68968a4bd61001893d833f281f12bb110edbe1`: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later commit updates only an engine test expectation. - The first CI workspace lane found an old engine trace-tree expectation. It expected the earlier span set. The updated assertion now checks the new detail spans, their parents, and single completion. Its targeted executor check passes. - The full test suite, build, release registry, and end-to-end gates pass in CI on final head `40e37d89ef679109d60a96bb5731a0616efeaa43`: 55 passing checks and 2 optional Storybook skips. The full suite was not duplicated locally after the focused run. - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. No unresolved review threads remain. - After deployment, filter Honeycomb by the hashed run ID and verify `service.version`. Inspect `heartbeat.prepare.workspace`, `runtime_selection.workspace_sync`, and the connector assignment parents. The guide in `doc/observability.md` explains each new family and the nested intervals. - No hosted run has used this new instrumentation yet. Local checks cannot establish hosted latency improvement. ## Risks - Tracing adds spans when an operator configures an OTLP endpoint. Detail remains capped at 16 spans per phase per execution attempt. - Parent and child durations overlap. The documentation explains how to avoid counting them twice. - A discovery job can start in another run's scheduler continuation. The bound callback preserves the initiating async context. - New spans export fixed names and the existing hashed run ID. They add no paths, repository URLs, connector resource IDs, credentials, tool schemas, or exception text. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served model ID 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>