mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
76c787fffc
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use task monitors to resume a future check. > - The monitor schema limits notes to 500 characters. > - The field description did not state the limit. Rejection showed only the schema path. > - This pull request adds the limit to the description and to safe length errors. > - Agents can correct notes before they retry a rejected call. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior fix: #16868. **What happened?** A native `set_task_monitor` call with 501 characters in `monitor.notes` failed with a path that ended in `notes/maxLength`. The error did not state 500. The schema already had `maxLength: 500`, but the field description did not state it. **Expected behavior** State the limit in the field description and in the rejection. Accept 500 characters. Reject 501 characters before dispatch. Preserve a saved monitor when a replacement is invalid. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Supply a future `monitor.nextCheckAt` and 501 characters in `monitor.notes`. 2. Read the native provider error. 3. Before this fix, it shows the constraint path without the maximum. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `7368a0b15c2f02107778a961144d86e2eb59a952` in a Linux source checkout, with Node 25.9.0 and Rust 1.97.1. ## What Changed - Use one local value for the published notes limit and its description. The server test checks agreement with the persisted shared validator. Keep the standalone Runner package boundary. - Read the numeric maximum from the authorized JSON Schema validation error. Keep submitted values private and preserve the 512-byte feedback bound. - Test the published schema and real bridge dispatch path at 500 and 501 characters. Test saved contents and rejection without monitor changes with real PostgreSQL. - Refresh generated contracts and document the limit. - Sync two SDK proof lock identities after the reviewed master lock refresh in #20615. This fixes the remaining CI proof mismatch. Keep compiler, parser, Zod, and all rejection checks unchanged. ## Verification - Final head: `bac60234ab3a8fc7043a90c7f9c81b02e250428b`. - Red: the server regression failed because the field description omitted `500`. The Rust regression failed because the error omitted `maximum 500 characters`. - Local passes after the final base update: 44 PostgreSQL monitor/scheduler tests, 14 real-source Rust bridge tests, 11 cache/Docker guard tests, and 56 SDK proof tests. Runner TypeScript build and generated contract checks pass. - The focused Rust check compiles the actual source in a small Cargo workspace. The full Rust CI suites also pass on Linux and Windows. - Final-head [PR CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42881633978) passes. This includes typecheck, build, Runner support, Runner Rust and Vitest, server tests, serialized tests, and all eight e2e shards. - Final-head [Windows Rust run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42881633419) passes. - Greptile: 5/5 on the final head, with no open findings. There are 61 successful checks and five conditional skips. The separate Paperclip Review remains queued; its comment says work is paused. No CI or test check is pending or failed. - `pnpm verify` returned exit 2 and selected broader CI. The full local suite was not run. Final-head CI supplies that coverage. Earlier failed attempts were repaired and are not counted as passes. ## Risks - Low risk. The existing 500-character bound, scheduling semantics, and permissions stay in place. - Length feedback uses only a schema path and numeric bound. It does not print submitted text. - The Runner binary and tool contracts must reach an instance for the new guidance to apply. This PR does not deploy or merge. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. ## 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>