mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Workspace migration must preserve saved files before the web server releases its local volume. > - An archived Git checkout can retain a trusted branch-deletion receipt after its private clone and generated project cache are removed. > - The original repository can still exist at its recorded file URL, but the archive owner did not check that source. > - This pull request permits a narrow, verified original bare-repository source for the exact recorded commit. > - The existing encrypted snapshot and publication owners then preserve the workspace through their normal migration path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Searches for the archived-source error and original bare Git source found no duplicate change. **What happened?** Migration reported `archived_git_source_unavailable` for an archived checkout even though its original bare repository still contained the exact saved commit. The private clone and generated cache were absent. **Expected behavior** The canonical owner can use the recorded original local repository when its full commit identity and source ownership are proven. Uncertain or changed sources remain blocked. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated checkout from a local bare repository. 2. Close it through the normal cleanup owner and retain the successful branch-deletion receipt. 3. Remove the private clone and generated cache, while retaining the recorded original repository and full base revision. 4. Inspect the archived workspace for migration. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `84908d176b2800f4c792c4249c610ec0baebdd28`. **Deployment mode** A source installation with existing local Git workspaces and shared object storage. ## What Changed - Consider the exact configured file-URL repository only after the canonical primary source is definitively absent. - Require a matching source record and successful cleanup receipt, the exact full base/deleted commit, a contained bare SHA-1 repository, bounded standard configuration and alias-free metadata. - Restrict this source path to local Git transport and a minimal environment. Reconstruct the tree only in private migration scratch. - Retain existing source fingerprints, journal identity, encrypted upload/readback and final publication checks. Lock and recheck the configured source and cleanup record before publication. - Add real PostgreSQL/Git coverage for encrypted cold restore, lost-reply retry and refused source or publication changes. ## Verification - The unchanged owner failed the real four-object original-source regression with an ineligible inventory. - The review regressions failed before each repair: four returned-primary retry/publication cases and two actual production metadata/reaper cases. - Final head `8925519310` passed all 40 focused PostgreSQL/Git tests in 56.38 seconds. Four positive formats use canonical/legacy metadata and ordinary/verified-tip cleanup. Each imports an encrypted snapshot, removes the original file URI from reach, then authenticates and cold-restores exact files, executable mode and Git history. - The same file covers source/receipt/writer guards, changed sources before publication, authenticated lost-reply reuse and 18 returned-primary directory/alias/unreadable cases. Refused publication retains returned edits and uploaded ciphertext. - Server TypeScript, module-boundary checks and `git diff --check` passed on this revision. Canonical test wrappers exited and cleaned up. - An earlier focused run also passed 22 existing archived-Git/restore-point controls. `pnpm verify --explain` completed without executing extra suites. Required CI supplies final broad coverage. - Final head passed all 60 CI/review contexts: 56 successful checks and four expected skips. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5, with no open review threads. - One unchanged archive segment-boundary test timed out on both framework attempts in the initial server shard. The one job-only retry passed with unchanged code and timeout. The test and its resolved local import graph match a green control revision. The original failures remain retained; the cause is unresolved. ## Risks - The fallback is intentionally narrow. Original repositories with a different full tip, unsupported configuration, aliases (including an aliased instance root), external object storage or more than 10,000 metadata entries remain blocked. - The first source check and final publication check add bounded local filesystem and Git work to this maintenance path. They add no recurring worker or network Git access. - Original repository files remain intact. Importing a retained workspace does not make its configured local file URL portable for future fresh project work. That separate configuration dependency still requires preservation and qualification before volume removal. - The local regression uses the real encryption and restore owners with a local object-storage backend. It does not claim a hosted backfill or a deployed migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact serving snapshot and context-window limit 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 #` 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>