DottaandPaperclip
1a79c8bdc7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their execution environments. > - Follow-up runs reuse saved sandbox computers to keep their workspace. > - Starting a stopped or archived computer can take more than one minute. > - Acquisition already uses the provider's startup budget, but reuse imposed a separate one-minute deadline. > - This pull request gives resume the configured or declared provider startup budget. > - The benefit is that a healthy slow start can continue on the same computer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up run failed during setup with `ReusableSandboxResumeError`. The saved computer became ready just after the host stopped waiting. The environment had no explicit timeout. Its provider declared a five-minute startup default, which the resume path ignored. **Expected behavior** Resume must honor the configured startup budget or the provider's declared default. It must retain the same lease. Failed or uncertain resumes must keep the saved computer. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a reusable sandbox provider with a startup budget longer than one minute. 2. Retain its lease and start a follow-up run. 3. Make provider resume finish after 61 seconds, within that budget. 4. Observe that the old host rejects at 60 seconds. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `aaeff418cf72341c674ff3393cd94f40dc4855f6`. **Deployment mode** Hosted sandbox execution. The regression uses a local isolated PostgreSQL database and controlled worker RPC timers. Searched open and closed PRs and open issues for sandbox resume and timeout fixes. No duplicate fix was found. Related acquisition timeout handling already exists on the base branch. ## What Changed - Use the provider's declared acquisition timeout when no explicit startup timeout exists. - Apply the resolved RPC budget to the shared resume/retry deadline instead of 60 seconds. - Add two deterministic 61-second resume regressions for declared and explicit startup budgets. Assert exact RPC budgets, including the 30-second margin, and check that the same lease remains active without replacement. - Document the timeout behavior, provider-author contract, and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: both new cases failed before the production change with `ReusableSandboxResumeError`, caused by `Plugin RPC timed out`. - Green: `pnpm exec vitest run --fsModuleCache server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` passed all 163 cases. The final review follow-up also passed both slow-resume cases with exact RPC-budget assertions (330 seconds by declaration; 150 seconds by explicit config). - An earlier full run passed the 161 existing cases but timed out in the two new tests because their fake clock also captured database scheduling. The corrected test restores real timers before lease persistence. The complete rerun then passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - Started `pnpm test:run`, then stopped the duplicate serial run in favor of complete parallel PR CI. The repository timing data totals about 126 minutes for server suites alone. Full parallel CI passed on the final head. - CI attempt 1 had one unrelated failure: `FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx` expected the asynchronous `Copied link` confirmation before React rendered it. That test and component are unchanged from the base branch. All six cases passed unchanged locally. A single rerun of the failed shard passed; attempt 2 of the full workflow succeeded. The timing-race diagnosis is an inference from the test helper, not a claim that this PR repairs that UI test. - Greptile scored the final head 5/5. Both review findings are fixed and both threads are resolved. - The consequential assumption is that provider startup may exceed one minute. The test preserves the RPC timeout race with controlled timers and uses real lease persistence. Read-only provider evidence also showed the retained computer ready just after the failed run ended. The patch has not been deployed to that instance. ## Risks - A slow or unavailable provider may hold setup for its configured startup budget instead of one minute. Retries still share one finite deadline. Providers with no explicit or declared timeout keep the one-minute default. - Lease identity, company scope, backup validation, and replacement decisions use the existing paths. No schema or dependency changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. This session supports reasoning, tool use, code editing, and test execution. The exact runtime variant and context-window size are not exposed. ## 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.