mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
6d112c74cf
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native runs have an execution recovery budget of three provider attempts, so a run that keeps failing stops retrying > - #19720 stopped charging a crash restart when the previous restart resume made progress > - In a crash loop (several kills within seconds), the controller can die again before the resumed execution starts its runner > - The next claim then charged that resume, although it used no provider work > - This pull request does not charge a resume that never started; the next claim replaces it > - The benefit is that fast restart bursts do not exhaust a healthy run's budget, and the generation cap still bounds real loops ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19720, #19625 **What happened?** In a restart-chaos storm wave, 8 runs still reached `execution_recovery_budget_exhausted`, mostly in K6 crash loops (three kills in about 20 seconds). Example: a Codex run was claimed at generation 9, attempt 3. The controller was killed 6 seconds later, before the executor recorded `native.process_start_requested`. The next claim found no progress after generation 9's position, charged, and blocked the run at attempt 3. The recorded history of the blocked runs shows that almost every charge after the first restart was for a resume with no start evidence (no runner request and no runner event) before the next claim. Two runs were blocked at generation 12, the existing cap. **Expected behavior** A resume that never started the provider consumed nothing and must not be charged. A resume that started and then made no progress must still be charged. The generation-12 cap stays. **Steps to reproduce** Start a native run. Kill the server during the run. Let a restart resume do work. Then kill the server repeatedly within seconds, before each new controller starts the runner. After one or two such bursts the run is blocked with `execution_recovery_budget_exhausted`. ## What Changed - `native-restart-recovery.ts`: `restartResumeKeepsAttempt()` replaces `previousResumeMadeProgress()`. It reads the previous claim's recorded `progressWatermarkSeq` and `progressAttempt` (`lastRecoveryClaimResume()`). - New `nativeExecutionStartedSince()`: after the watermark, it looks for `native.process_start_requested`, `native.process_identity_recorded`, `adapter.invoke`, `tool.execution.started`, or any event with a runner `source_event_id`. This is the same start evidence as `hasNativeExecutionStartEvidence()`, limited to events after the watermark. - When the previous resume never started, the claim keeps the attempt if the run is already at the attempt that resume was to run as. If the executor never applied that charge (killed before its execution lease), the claim charges once, so the run reaches that attempt and never goes above it. - When the previous resume started, the #19720 progress rule applies unchanged. - The generation-12 cap applies to both rules. - `doc/execution-semantics.md` states the rule. ## Verification New tests in `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts` (embedded Postgres, real `claimNativeRestartRecoveries`): - `does not charge for a resume killed before it started the provider (after the executor took its lease)`: one progress resume, then four crash claims with no start evidence. The attempt stays 2. A resume that starts and fails then charges to 3. Red on master (charged to 3, then blocked). - `... (before the executor took its lease)`: the same with the lease never taken. Green on master and with the fix, as a guard. - `charges the owed attempt once when an unstarted first resume is replaced`: the replacement claim charges once (attempt 2). - `bounds a crash loop that never starts the provider`: blocks after the generation cap. Red on master (blocked at the third claim). - The #19720 tests now record `native.process_start_requested` in their resumes, as a real resume does. - `native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts`, `heartbeat-native-restart-suspension.test.ts`, `native-restart-recovery-isolation.test.ts`, `native-remote-retry-admission.test.ts`: 231 passed, 14 skipped. - `tsc --noEmit` for `server` has no errors in the changed files. ## Risks - A crash that happens before the runner start, every time, gets free resumes until generation 12. Then the budget applies. This is the same bound as the progress rule. - Start evidence is the executor's durable `native.process_start_requested` record, written before any backend may spawn a runner. If an older path launched a provider without it, that resume would be treated as unstarted until the generation cap. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test execution). Extended reasoning enabled. ## 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>