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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.