mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
c9391720a1
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Task messages remain in a durable queue while an earlier run saves its result. > - That result can mark the task done before the user sends the saved messages. > - Send records current user intent, but its wake guard allowed only active task states. > - The old queue therefore remained pending with an obsolete finalization message. > - This change admits that exact Send receipt and reopens the task through the issue service in the successor transaction. > - The agent can receive the saved input once while the completed result remains unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Send on a saved message can leave the message queued after its native predecessor succeeds and commits. The old wait message remains visible. Allowing admission alone also fails: continuation construction rejects a task that remains done. **Expected behavior** Explicit Send must deliver the saved input once through normal admission. It must retain the previous run and its result. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a follow-up while a native run finishes its result. 2. Let that run succeed, commit its accepted result, and mark the task done. 3. Send the saved follow-up. Before this change, the receipt stays deferred. Related public work: Refs #19542. That change selects recovered workspace files. This change handles the later saved-message admission. Refs #19602 for the independent workflow fixture repair required by CI. ## What Changed - Allow the exact explicit Send wake guard to accept a done task. Keep automatic recovery and cancelled task guards unchanged. - Reopen the task through the company-scoped issue service after admission gates pass. Commit reopening, queue consumption and the successor together. Publish the audit after commit. - Add a native succeeded/committed predecessor regression with unchanged saved work and one successor after two resume calls. - Verify real heartbeat startup under the clicking operator. Keep automatic input, cancelled tasks and paused agents held. - Check workspace preflight for the prospective reopened task. Use the normal company-scoped transition if preflight blocks a done task, so its completion metadata is cleared. - Check a successful native predecessor for its committed accepted result, current ownership and pending cleanup. Keep approvals and questions effective even without a recovery action. - Document the saved Send contract and update the queue test dependency. ## Verification - Final merge qualification for `675914f0fa9b5eb1d2c9c8fcd448e0669d0c4836`: all 56 applicable status checks pass, with no pending or failed checks. [Final CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42307623559) includes typecheck, build, all applicable test and E2E shards, and aggregate verification. Current-head Greptile is 5/5; all five review threads are resolved. Any paused or queued application review is not claimed as a new completed review. - Final base qualification at `675914f0fa9b5eb1d2c9c8fcd448e0669d0c4836`: official preflight passes (1.5s); all six integrated model-normalization cases pass (19.07s); both affected test typecheck layers pass. The integration changes no production server/shared/Runner/adapter inputs, so the preceding 12-case Send proof, two ordinary status guards, and unchanged production typecheck layers remain applicable. Fresh final-head CI supplies broad coverage. - New review regression: both failed and cancelled native predecessors on a task manually marked Done fail before the repair with `continuation_task_ownership_changed` through real `resumeQueuedCommentInterrupt` admission. At `bfb0eff7941090ac3ac43ce4366ba2e3d46612e9`, all 12 affected Send/source/cleanup/workspace/decision cases pass (246.80s), ordinary Done/cancelled rejection cases pass (2; 100.31s), and all seven server typecheck layers pass. History validation uses the prospective reopened status only for an already-verified explicit native Send. No status is changed during a dry run. - Prior `e64e4bb1` CI passed the affected serialized server suites, including the complete saved-message route suite, typecheck and build. General server shard 4 still failed two unrelated stale default-model expectations (`gpt-5.6-sol` versus the new `gpt-6.1-sol` default). The equivalent repair has already merged in #19610 as `8621bcf53ee2e4bbefb7d193add42dd544ca06e8`; the separately prepared #19645 is closed as superseded. This source fix does not weaken or edit those assertions. - Original RED: the committed-source and completed-task startup cases left the saved receipt deferred. - Review RED: Done plus an unrunnable isolated worktree created one successor instead of zero. A successful committed predecessor with pending lease cleanup also created one instead of zero. The new Done-to-blocked path retained stale completion time. Pending approvals and questions each allowed a successor. All failures were captured before their respective repairs. - Integrated production revision `99018264dd1ef002ff3500378184bcd167d9206b`: 417 affected cases pass across the complete native continuation, responsible-user startup, and workspace preflight suites (386 + 18 + 13). These include the original successful startup case and six cleanup/finalization faults that hold the exact saved receipt until settlement, then deliver it once. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes all seven layers on that integrated head, including the local Runner/SDK dependency build. Module-boundary, whitespace, and added-code-comment checks pass. - Normal master integrations preserve branch history. No force push or assertion weakening was used. Fresh CI and automated review are running on `675914f0fa9b5eb1d2c9c8fcd448e0669d0c4836`, which normally integrates the already-merged #19610 fixture repair after the reproduced inherited CI failure. - The earlier CI attempt failed in five unchanged workflow fixture cases because IMAGE_ONLY was unset. The merged #19602 repairs that fixture. A later inherited duplicate default in that independent fixture has a separate repair; this PR does not edit it. - Follow-up route-fixture RED: three existing native queue delivery cases failed because their fixture marked a run successful without an accepted result or committed finalization. The same three cases pass after the fixture records the complete native success contract (42.08s); delivery assertions and production gates are unchanged. The affected test-tree TypeScript layer also passes. The full route run passed all 119 assertions but failed its 30-second database teardown hook, so it is not recorded as a suite pass. That result is retained. One unchanged bounded rerun was stopped after more than 15 minutes without a final verdict; it is inconclusive, not a pass. - Final integrated head `e64e4bb1`: all 13 focused route and completed-task admission cases pass across two real-PostgreSQL suites (188.95s), including the three repaired route fixtures and every new cleanup/finalization/decision hold. Fresh preflight passes; all seven server typecheck layers pass. Required final CI supplies the broader route and server coverage. - These tests use real PostgreSQL and normal admission, cleanup, queue consumption, and startup services. The startup suite controls the provider boundary. Hosted provider acceptance remains pending normal deployment. ## Risks - Explicit Send can reopen a done task. This is limited to its validated saved receipt and current assignee. A cancelled task remains held. - Reopening uses the existing company-scoped issue transition and shares the successor transaction. A failed admission does not reopen the task. Provider Stop, workspace, approval, pause and budget checks retain their existing owners. - Cleanup and pending decisions retain the done task and saved receipt. An unrunnable workspace uses the existing blocked-task diagnostic. No schema or runtime package changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family; exact serving snapshot/context window not exposed; repository analysis, code editing, tool execution. ## 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>