DottaandPaperclip
98d17da1e2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs persist their results and workspace before they release execution. > - A task monitor must wait for that settlement before it starts the next run. > - The scheduler checked provider status but did not check unfinished finalization. > - A timer could dispatch too early, then its old finalizer could no longer find the consumed schedule. > - This pull request delays dispatch and reconciles prior delivery from server records. > - The task can continue without repeating the provider turn or removing a newer run's ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run saved a yielded monitor result while workspace finalization needed recovery. Its timer dispatched after the provider stopped. The follow-up failed because the earlier run still held workspace recovery. The old finalizer then retried `monitor_wait_authority_lost` indefinitely. **Expected behavior** Timer dispatch waits for native finalization. If an older timer already dispatched, the finalizer uses its saved scheduling receipt and admitted successor to settle the old result. It preserves current task state and ownership. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a task monitor from a native run and save a yielded result. 2. Leave native finalization retryable after the provider reaches a terminal state. 3. Let the monitor become due. Before this change, the scheduler consumes it. 4. Restore workspace persistence and retry the old finalizer. Before this change, the missing schedule leaves it retryable. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `34be1b831bcaba070264ae8d214ceffe6a8f9eab`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source, with PostgreSQL and the native runner. Related recent recovery work: #16962 and #16963. No duplicate repair found for this failure. ## What Changed - Scheduled and manual monitor dispatch wait for unfinished native finalization. If the monitor expires during workspace recovery, the accepted result can settle into the persisted schedule, and the scheduler then applies its existing expiry policy. New monitor-wait results still require an unexpired, unexhausted schedule. - A narrow reader joins the run's server-issued monitor receipt to its durable wake and admitted successor. - The finalizer and locked status commit verify that evidence and preserve current task ownership. They do not create another wake. - Monitor delivery participates in assessment identity, so recovery can replace a prior error decision without violating the decision ledger's uniqueness constraints. - PostgreSQL regressions cover saved-result replay, active successors, wrong task or agent, missing receipts, unadmitted wakes, ownership races, and failed workspace persistence. - The execution contract and verification maps describe the recovery boundary. ## Verification - Red: the saved monitor regression remained `retryable_failure` instead of `committed` on unpatched code. - Red: the scheduler admitted a wake while terminal-run finalization remained retryable. - Red/green: two PostgreSQL cases reproduce timeout during workspace recovery for scheduled and manual checks. Before the review repair, both remain `retryable_failure` with `monitor_wait_authority_lost`. Afterward, both commit, apply board escalation once, preserve the saved result, and enqueue zero provider wakes. New completion still rejects the expired schedule. - Typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Build: `pnpm build` passed. - Maps: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Review: Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail Paperclip Review 5/5 on the current head, with no unresolved findings. Both reviews are static; execution evidence is recorded separately above and below. - Linux staging: the original repair passed 170 tests across monitor integration, scheduling, status arbitration, and workspace finalization. The expanded suite passes all 172 tests, including both new timeout regressions. - Live acceptance: deployed the original repair to the authorized Linux ARM64 self-hosted instance. The stranded saved result finalized automatically; the original task then completed through normal admission, with its final answer persisted after browser reload. The other original task was already complete and its external delivery was verified without repeating it. - The initial Mac regression run passed 68 tests, but three suites failed during embedded PostgreSQL startup. A subsequent focused run confirmed the host had exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphore allowance. Linux verification uses isolated databases; the local failure logs remain preserved. - The local full test suite is not claimed as passed. It is blocked by the same PostgreSQL startup limitation; full-suite CI passed on head `8bc29d1b7783446f397b858e558083570a96bb66` ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39447913466)). ## Risks - A delivery match must not grant new execution authority. The lookup requires the original run's server receipt and a matching company, agent, task, wake, and admitted successor. The locked commit rejects old-run checkout ownership and permits no status effects. - Workspace persistence must succeed before settlement. Its existing failure path remains effective. - The scheduler waits while a native finalizer is unfinished. Workspace recovery must settle before dispatch; elapsed monitor limits transfer to the existing scheduler recovery policy instead of stranding the result. Neither settlement path renews a deadline or changes budget, approval, pause, or provider authority. - No schema, migration, credential, or provider configuration change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact backend 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>
6.6 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Task creation and lifecycle
People create, assign, organize, discuss, and finish tasks. A task retains its owner, project, priority, history, and outputs as it moves through the work lifecycle.
Implementation: new task, task list, task detail.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
create: capture a title/request with the intended agent, project, and attachments.organize: filter, sort, group, and navigate tasks without losing the selected context.properties: change status, priority, assignee, project, and relationships where authorized.discussion: persist comments, references, and files on the task.completion: distinguish backlog, active work, review, blocked, done, and cancelled outcomes.
How to get to it (user POV)
new-task
Use New task from the global launcher, task list, or project task view.
task-list
Open /issues or a project’s Issues view; legacy /tasks links redirect.
task-detail
Open /issues/:issueId from a row, mention, or direct link.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project. Persistence checks can assign work to Me or leave it unassigned; execution checks additionally need an invokable test agent. Record whether a real or simulated harness handles execution.
new-task
Automated: creation dialog is component coverage with mocked requests.
Manual: Create a uniquely named task with an agent and project. Open its resulting link and reload. Confirm text, attachment, assignment, and project persisted, and verify execution started only when the task and agent are eligible.
Creation is request-first: enter Describe a task…, choose the assignee and project, and submit Create task. A standalone title field is not always shown. Use a human/unassigned task to verify persistence without invoking a model.
task-list
Automated: task-list helpers cover search URLs, pagination, deduplication, and presentation constants. The suite does not render the page or exercise filtering, grouping, opening a task, and returning; those interactions still need a running-browser check.
Manual: Seed human-created, agent-created, scheduled routine, human-initiated chat-channel, and creator-less tasks. Confirm automation is hidden by default, show agent-created tasks reveals it, reload preserves the choice, and Clear filters hides it again. Verify list and board search with automation newer than the human results, and expand contextual ancestors/subtasks without promoting unrelated automated roots. Repeat in project task lists. Agent profiles and task-detail subtasks retain complete history.
Manual: Filter by status and assignee, change grouping/sort, open a task, and return. Verify the correct records and selected view survive navigation and reload. Include an empty result and a failed request.
task-detail
Automated: task detail covers component behavior, while issue service covers server contracts.
Manual: For a disposable task owned by a legacy agent, have its current run
assign the task to a human with status In review. Verify that assignment and
status persist, that the current run finishes without issue_reassigned, and
that slow workspace restoration does not turn the task Blocked. Try a later edit
from the outgoing run and verify rejection. Repeat a board
reassignment and confirm that the outgoing run still stops.
Manual: Add a comment and edit authorized properties. Reload and verify history, actor, and values. Complete a disposable task and inspect its deliverable; reopen through an available action and confirm the next execution follows current policy.
Manual: Ask a standard native agent to schedule a future check on its current task. Reload and confirm the persisted monitor. After the agent yields, verify one later wake and a consumed schedule. For malformed-call recovery, use the agent access recipe and verify that schema feedback supports a corrected call before a wait is claimed. For a due monitor held by execution recovery, confirm that the schedule remains and task activity explains the deferral. Repeated checks must not replay the held work. Resolve the hold through its existing recovery action, then verify one wake. Hold native finalization after the provider has stopped, and verify that both scheduled and manual checks retain the due monitor. After settlement, verify one wake. If its timeout passes during workspace recovery, verify settlement followed by the configured expiry recovery, with no ordinary monitor wake or duplicate escalation. For a timer already dispatched before recovery, verify that the saved result settles without changing the task, removing a successor's checkout, or creating another wake. The monitor regression and scheduler regression cover these boundaries with PostgreSQL.
Manual: Add an ordinary Board comment while a task retry is queued or running. Confirm that the same execution keeps working and receives the saved message, without a second executor or an implicit move to Todo. Repeat with a parked retry and verify that fresh instructions can supersede it. Explicit Stop must still cancel active work. The comment route regressions and HTTP/process and interrupted-cancellation tests cover these boundaries locally; deployed runner acceptance remains separate.
Gotchas
-
Priority remains an API field, but ordinary priority UI editing is hidden.
-
A status label alone does not prove that the requested work exists.
-
Single-assignee and atomic checkout rules still apply when tasks are created from different hosts.
-
Use coordination, steering, and documents for their distinct workflows.
Documentation scope: Tasks, conversations, and attention
Recipes cover the main task/conversation/attention workflows. Full shell, permission, attachment, long-thread, and concurrency permutations remain to be enumerated.