mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
6c9b87d092
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work performed by AI agents. > - The controller prepares a task workspace before it starts a provider turn. > - Repository admission also runs when a checkout already exists. > - One observed reuse took 16.877 seconds. Its child spans explained only 3.556 seconds. > - The missing detail covered repeated authority checks, catalog work, and publication waits. > - This change exposes those operations under the existing execution attempt. > - Operators can expand the slow phase before choosing a performance fix. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16963, #16330, and #16515. The provider-routing work in #17019 has a different scope. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Repository-admission traces for new and reused checkouts. **Subsystem affected** server/ orchestration and operator-configured OpenTelemetry tracing. **Current behavior** The admission span can contain a long interval without child spans. Existing project checks, HTTP requests, and checkout lookup do not explain current-task checks, database awaits, credential refresh, or publication locks. **Proposed behavior** Expose nested spans for current binding and task access, individual identity reads, catalog construction, credentials, grant transactions, filesystem validation, Git inspection, and directory-lock acquisition, work, and release. **Reason and benefit** The trace can distinguish repeated checks, remote calls, database awaits, and directory contention. A database-await span includes driver, network, pool, and server time. It is not isolated SQL execution time. **Breaking changes** None. No API, schema, permission, retry, lock, or repository behavior changes. ## What Changed - Add fixed admission phases beneath the existing execution attempt. Keep the existing project, checkout, and HTTP detail. - Trace current-task authorization stages only under workspace access. Unrelated decisions cannot consume that detail budget before admission. - Trace GitHub catalog reads, credentials, provider metadata, grant row locking and writes, transaction settlement, and webhook work. - Separate directory-lock acquisition, the protected operation, and release without changing the adapter lock contract. - Document the hierarchy and timing limits. Keep endpoint gating, span caps, and hashed run correlation. Add no span attributes or exception text. ## Verification - Nine new tests passed with real PostgreSQL, real Git, and SDK-exported spans. They cover directory contention, grant-row blocking, all three binding checks, reuse without cloning, dirty files, private-task denial, receipt repair, conflict retry, endpoint-off behavior, and parent IDs. - Twenty earlier unrelated authorization decisions do not exhaust the admission detail budget. - Existing authorization and trust suites: 105 tests passed. Existing timing/context suites: 26 tests passed. Existing repository-access tests: 6 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on commit `5a986d8c86644dfb7ee39b3b832e2d7c86532598`. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete locally. The temporary five-connection cluster returned `sorry, too many clients already` in chat fixtures, and the run was interrupted. It is not a pass. The complete standard CI workflow passed on the same commit, including all 12 server shards and all three chat shards. - Final current-head checks: 54 success, two neutral, two skipped, zero pending or failing. The [CI aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39522187940/job/118971261973) passed. [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17040#issuecomment-6305066520) and [Paperclip Review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17040#issuecomment-6305017182) both assessed this exact commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved threads. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - This macOS host exhausted its SysV semaphore quota. Database tests used a temporary command-scoped initdb preload with five connections, fewer workers, and a larger lock table. No repository test infrastructure or shared host settings changed. Initial skipped tests, focused-fixture failures, and clock-order assertion failures were corrected and rerun; they are not counted as passes. The complete local run remained connection-limited and was interrupted. - Local SDK export proves parentage and privacy. Hosted Honeycomb ingestion remains unverified until deployment. No deployment occurred. ## Risks Span recording requires an operator-configured OTLP endpoint. Each fixed detail name remains capped at 16 occurrences per attempt. Later operations still execute under their enclosing phase. Timing wrappers preserve the existing operations and their errors. No migration is required. The change does not itself reduce admission latency. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use, code execution, and delegated agents. The exact hosted model identifier 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>