mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
6fae6f2cb8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The wake queue releases task locks and can promote saved follow-up work when a run ends. > - An operator can stop a queued run before dispatch selects its runtime. > - The legacy release path can promote the old follow-up after that Stop. > - For an obsolete routine cycle, this can conflict with the current active cycle after cancellation has already committed. > - This pull request preserves the deferred input without promoting it at that release boundary. > - The benefit is that a queued Stop stays stopped and does not return an error from starting an obsolete follow-up. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #14300 and Refs #16339 describe other pre-dispatch cancellation paths. Related PR #16238 changes former-owner wake selection. This change addresses expected operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection, without changing those contracts. **What happened?** Stopping an unstarted legacy run committed its cancellation, then tried to promote a deferred wake. When another cycle of the same routine was already active, the issue lock update failed against `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The cancel request returned HTTP 500 even though the run was cancelled. Without a competing cycle, the Stop launched the old follow-up. **What did you expect to happen?** Release the stopped run's own locks and preserve deferred input for a later eligible instruction. Do not start the old queue as a side effect of Stop. **Steps to reproduce** Create two cycles of the same routine. Keep the current cycle active. Give the old cycle an unstarted legacy run with a verified bootstrap record and a deferred wake. Cancel that run as a board operator, then release its issue execution. The added database regression reproduces the failed lock update before the fix. **Paperclip version / commit** Reproduced on parent commit `976cdc77ed564dc3e014621505890b647e554a7f`. **Deployment mode** A remote runtime exposed the symptom. The regression uses embedded PostgreSQL and the real wake-queue adapter. ## What Changed - Recognize an expected operator Stop only when the legacy run has no runtime-selection time, start time, process-start time, or process identity. - Use the existing release boundary to preserve deferred input without promoting it. - Add database regressions for ordinary Stop, a competing routine cycle, repeated release, provider cancellation, runtime selection, and dispatched-run reconciliation. - Document the behavior and update both recovery maps. ## Verification - Before the fix, both queued Stop cases failed. The competing-cycle case raised `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The three control cases passed. - `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 7 files and 214 tests passed, including all five new database cases. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 10 map-script tests passed locally. The complete CI suite is green on `8e204eef87f1a593df5c183abef764e4b9eb5fd1`. The remaining serial local full-suite run was stopped once that unchanged-head CI verification passed; a local full-suite pass is not claimed. Apex review passed at 5/5 on the same head with no review threads. ## Risks - The change is limited to recorded operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection. Selected runtimes, dispatched work, provider cancellation, and native stop acknowledgement keep their existing paths. - Deferred work is retained. A later eligible instruction must still use normal admission and all current gates. - No schema migration or new authority is required. This regression is not proof of a live provider stop. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot ID 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>