mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-12 18:06:11 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
712671068e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages autonomous AI agents and their work. > - Paperclip Runner preserves the authority of each provider session. > - A reusable close requires durable semantic results, provider drain, and suspension. > - The real-process tests gave successful close cases a shorter budget than production. > - Under load, the test can miss its drain deadline and then expect an unsafe success. > - This change tests successful close with the unchanged production budget. > - Deliberately stalled and failed-persistence cases keep their short deadline and rejection checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Release verification failed in `fences reusable suspension against late semantic completion` for both successful modes. The runner suspended, but the provider drain proof missed the test's preparation deadline. Production correctly rejected reuse. The test expected success. **Expected behavior** Successful real-process cases should use the production close budget. Failure cases should still reject without exact settlement proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run the affected tests with the real runner and fake provider. Add 250 ms after each actual control-store save during close. With the old five-second override, both successful modes reject with the same missing-drain-proof settlement. With the production default, both pass. The controlled delay reproduces the deadline mechanism. It does not measure the actual CI disk latency. **Paperclip version or commit** Base commit: `1602512820832b43afef6786bedeee4e5294db8e`. **Deployment mode** Release verification and local real-process tests. No application or deployment behavior changes. Duplicate search: #14382 and #14395 modify nearby runner tests, but do not change this parameterized close test. They are separate work. ## What Changed - Use the production close budget for the two successful modes. - Keep the explicit five-second budget for stalled callbacks and persistence failures. - Keep all semantic-result, exact drain, suspension, and checkpoint assertions. - Change one test file. Production code and deadlines stay unchanged. ## Verification - Unchanged baseline: all four affected cases passed. Ten additional successful-mode repeats passed. - Controlled durable-write delay: the old budget failed both successful modes. The production budget passed both. - Candidate: all four affected real-process cases passed. - Parallel baseline runner sweep: 3,491 passed, 5 unrelated local fixture failures, and 12 skipped. The affected cases passed. This is not an aggregate pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Independent review passed all four affected cases and repeated the real-write latency contrast with the same result. No findings. - `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after 15 unrelated local warm-ownership fixture failure markers (exit 130). The full local aggregate did not complete or pass. The changed Runner test is outside the root test project list. The completed independent and focused checks above cover the change. - All GitHub CI is green on the exact head: 52 successful check runs, one successful commit status, and two expected Storybook skips. The affected Runner lane passed. - Greptile scored the exact head 5/5, with no open comments. ## Risks Low risk. This changes a test option only. The two successful cases can now wait up to the existing production deadline. The two failure cases keep their short bound. Missing receipts still reject reusable close. The source does not relax a permission, ownership fence, or durability check. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, terminal tools, and an independent agent review. The exact deployed model suffix 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: #` 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass; aggregate limitations are recorded above - [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>