mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 14:19:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
e7936fb1ad
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a server restart loses a run's process, the orphan reaper decides whether to retry the run > - `doc/execution-semantics.md` says process loss uses the shared durable failure retry counter, and `enqueueProcessLossRetry` already schedules against that budget > - The reaper still guards on `processLossRetryCount < 1`, but nothing has written that column since the move to the shared budget, so the guard does nothing > - So an exhausted chain still says "retrying once" and skips the interaction continuation path, and a legacy row with a non-zero counter is refused a retry it is owed > - This pull request replaces the dead guard with `failedRunRetryBudgetSpent`, the budget that the retry actually spends > - The benefit is one restart budget, read and written in one place, with honest run messages ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Bug description** The Phase 0 ownership inventory (finding 5) found that `processLossRetryCount` has no writer and that its only reader is the reaper guard at `heartbeat/recovery.ts:2675`. The guard always passes for new rows. For rows written by earlier releases, it refuses a retry even when the shared failure budget has room. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seed a legacy run that a restart stopped before adapter dispatch. Spend its whole failure retry budget (`executionRetryAccounting.failureRetries = max`). 2. Run `reapOrphanedRuns()`. 3. The run fails with "Process lost -- server may have restarted; retrying once", but no retry is scheduled. **Expected behavior** An exhausted budget gives no promise of a retry. A legacy counter value does not block a retry that the shared budget allows. Refs #19846 ## What Changed - `heartbeat/recovery.ts`: `shouldRetry` now checks `!failedRunRetryBudgetSpent(run)` instead of `processLossRetryCount < 1`. When the budget is spent, the reaper falls through to `scheduleInteractionContinuationInfrastructureRetryIfEligible`, which is what the old guard intended. - `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: a comment marks `process_loss_retry_count` as legacy. There is no schema or migration change. - Tests: the three cases that used `processLossRetryCount: 1` to mean "retry already spent" now spend the real failure budget. Two new cases cover a legacy counter (a retry is still scheduled) and a spent budget (no "retrying once", `retryEligible: false`, no retry run). ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "process-loss|failure budget|bypass unknown process outcomes|immediate terminal-run cleanup|paused-tree work|restart stopped before adapter dispatch|reached adapter dispatch"`: 7 passed. - Red before the fix: with the old `recovery.ts`, both new cases fail. Green after. - Server `tsc --noEmit` shows no errors in the changed files. - The full `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` file (419 cases) stalled locally at 0% CPU after about 15 minutes. That run was on a worktree whose package builds were stale at first. I ran the focused subset instead, and required CI runs the full file. ## Risks - Low risk. The retry decision now follows the same budget that `enqueueProcessLossRetry` already enforced. A run with budget left behaves as before. - Previous-release story: rows saved with `process_loss_retry_count > 0` are no longer refused for that reason alone. The shared failure budget, which earlier releases also wrote, bounds them. The column stays, so earlier-release readers (`queue.ts` startup resume) keep working. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used with tool use and code execution 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>