mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
c9b93d7e8c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks record an assigned owner and separate checkout and execution locks. > - A completed task must retain its owner after execution ends. > - The release endpoint currently clears that owner when it clears the locks. > - This pull request preserves the assignee of Done and Cancelled tasks during release. > - Unfinished tasks keep the existing relinquishment behavior. > - The benefit is stable task attribution without retaining execution locks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent completed an assigned task, then called the release endpoint. The task stayed Done, but its assignee became null. The same defect affects Cancelled tasks. It caused the legacy Claude clarification/reuse and multiple-repository handoff E2E assertions to fail. **Expected behavior** Release must clear execution locks on terminal tasks and preserve their assignee, final status, and disposition timestamps. Release of unfinished tasks must still clear the agent assignee. Only In Progress work returns to Todo. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an assigned task with checkout and execution locks. 2. Complete or cancel the task. 3. Call `POST /api/issues/:id/release` as the assigned agent. 4. Read the saved task. Before this fix, its assignee is null. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master commit `d172197117a14b80a1eb2d2835a0e7cce2679656`. **Deployment mode** Local tests against real PostgreSQL through the production issue routes and services. This is a core lifecycle defect, independent of the agent adapter. Refs: #11689, #6899, #7769. These are related open release proposals. This is an independent fix limited to terminal task ownership. It does not include timer scheduling changes. ## What Changed - Preserve the current assignee when releasing Done or Cancelled tasks. - Keep all execution-lock cleanup and existing unfinished-task behavior. - Cover all seven task statuses through the release API and read back saved state. - Check disposition timestamps, activity attribution, and repeated board cleanup. - Update the API contract, agent reference, and CLI help. ## Verification - Red commit `ddaabb754`: the two terminal-owner regressions failed with `assigneeAgentId: null`; 12 other route tests passed. - Green: all 14 route tests pass, plus the existing successor-checkout race test (15 selected tests total). - Command: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t 'stale issue execution lock routes|does not let stale release clobber a successor checkout lock'`. - The local host has exhausted its SysV semaphore pool. The red/green runs used the existing test-provider hook to start disposable Docker PostgreSQL 17 instances. Routes, services, migrations, and assertions were unchanged. No database tests in the selected set were skipped. The other 134 tests were excluded by the name filter. - Capability contract and inventory drift checks pass. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass. - The local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after environment failures while the complete sharded CI suite ran in parallel: native PostgreSQL bootstrap fails under the host semaphore limit, and the large Git fixture hits macOS `ENAMETOOLONG`. A focused rerun confirmed these happen before the relevant assertions. The interrupted local run is not counted as a full pass. - Greptile completed on `1caeeb827e9cb658ddb71f16c2421ec20f80634e` with **5/5**, a successful check, and no review threads. - All CI gates pass on the current head: typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner checks, browser E2E, release packaging, and security checks. Server shard 11 passed on one targeted retry; the first attempt had 836 passing tests but an unhandled workspace-runtime startup rejection caused by an existing timing window. All other successful jobs were reused. - No paid provider evaluations were run. ## Risks - A caller that used release to erase ownership from terminal work will now retain that owner. An explicit assignment update or the board force-release option with `clearAssignee=true` can still clear it. - No schema or migration changes. The transaction, company access, assignee/run checks, and activity log remain in place. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use, code execution, and test debugging. The session does not expose a more specific backend model version or context-window size. - OpenAI `gpt-6-luna` assisted with read-only test discovery and review. ## 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>