mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandClaude
889b33da72
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A native run on a remote sandbox can finish with an accepted result, and then fail to save its workspace. Saved-work recovery saves the files again from the retained sandbox, with no provider turn. > - #20758 made a save that finds the sandbox disk full stop at once as `sandbox_disk_full` and hand the task to the board with a Retry. > - When the user frees space and presses Retry, the save now succeeds. But the Retry then started a new agent turn (`strategy: continue`). That turn repeats work that already finished and spends provider budget again. The accepted result was not applied (`replacementDenied: explicit_user_continuation`). > - The decision for this case: when a durable record proves that the run's result was already accepted, Retry applies that saved result and starts no new turn. > - This pull request makes Retry admission wait for the run's saved-work holds and then applies the accepted result through the existing preserved-result finalization. > - The benefit is that a Retry after a failed save finishes the task from the work that was already done, with no repeated provider work or spend. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20758 (full-disk save rests as `sandbox_disk_full` with a Retry), Refs #20810 (chaos fault DF1 for a full disk on the final workspace save) **What happened?** A native run had an accepted, succeeded result. Its workspace save failed because the sandbox disk was full, and the task rested at `sandbox_disk_full` with a Retry. The user freed space and pressed Retry. The save succeeded, and then Retry admission started a new run with `strategy: continue`. The accepted result stayed unapplied (the finalization coordinator stayed in `terminal_failure`). Two paths caused this: 1. Retry admission let the Retry through as soon as the saved files were verified. That can happen before preserved-result finalization runs: the recovery worker dispatches the Retry right after one hold settles, while the hold that Retry added for the same run is still scheduled. On master this is deterministic in that order, and a race otherwise. 2. Preserved-result finalization reads the newest saved-work hold of the run. While that hold was still scheduled, it declined, and nothing held the Retry back. **Expected behavior** After the save succeeds, and a durable record proves that the run's result was already accepted, Retry applies that result. The run and task finish from it. No new `turn.start` and no new provider spend. If the save fails again with a full disk, the task keeps the `sandbox_disk_full` rest and a working Retry. If there is no proven accepted result, Retry keeps the previous behaviour and starts one run. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Give a native run an accepted, succeeded result whose copy-back failed (`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`). 2. Make the saved-work recovery save fail with `remote_workspace_sandbox_disk_full`. The hold goes to the board. 3. Free space. Press Retry. Let recovery save the files, then dispatch the Retry before preserved-result finalization runs. 4. On master, a new run starts with `previousRunId` set to the source run, and the accepted result is not applied. ## What Changed - `preserved-result-finalization.ts`: the eligibility checks move into one read (`readPreservedResult`). They are unchanged: an accepted, succeeded result of this run, a completed saved-work recovery with a verified receipt, no Stop, no newer run, no current execution, and no applied generation. A new read-only `canResumePreservedResultFinalization` uses the same read without locks. `resumePreservedResultFinalization` keeps the finalizer's lock order (coordinator first) and takes the issue and run rows with NOWAIT, so it cannot deadlock with the finalizer, owner-stop confirmation or Retry dispatch; a busy row is retried briefly, and the last attempt waits for its locks. It also writes an activity entry, `issue.saved_result_finalization_resumed`, when it applies a result. - `explicit-native-continuation.ts`: Retry admission holds an accepted Retry (`evaluate`) of a run whose saved files are verified and whose accepted result is still held, with the wait `finalizing_saved_result`. It holds while a saved-work hold of that run is still `scheduled`, `running` or `awaiting_evidence` and the result is otherwise applicable (no Stop, newer run, other owner or current execution), or once `canResumePreservedResultFinalization` is true. In every other case admission is unchanged. - `heartbeat/run-control.ts` (`resumeTaskRetry`): after dispatch, if admission held the Retry with `finalizing_saved_result`, it calls `resumePreservedResultFinalization`. That coalesces the Retry into the source run with `strategy: finalize_result` and re-arms finalization. This is one key read after admission; the resumption runs only for a held Retry. The recovery worker already calls the same function after each saved hold, so either path finishes the work. - Tests: `workspace-recovery-disk-full.test.ts` now proves the new Retry behaviour (red on master), a dispatch that lands while another hold of the run is still saving (red on master), a Retry while the disk is still full, and three negative cases that keep one new run. `workspace-recovery-preparation-gates.test.ts` (s12 and RC-50b) and `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts` (copy-back + `task_retry`) encoded the old "new run" result for the same situation. They now expect the saved result to be applied. A fixture helper `recoverRunHolds` runs the recovery steps for every hold of a run, as the worker does. - `ui/src/components/WorkspaceExportRecovery.tsx`: at the `sandbox_disk_full` rest, the retained-file panel no longer shows its own "Recover saved files" button and no longer hides the task's Retry. Before, the API said `canRetry: true` and the note said "Retry saves the files again", but the board showed only "Recover saved files" (seen in the DF1 chaos wave). The panel now says to free space and use Retry. A new UI test covers it. `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: documents the Retry behaviour and its conditions. ## Verification Red/green (`cd server && npx vitest run src/services/workspace-recovery-disk-full.test.ts`): - On master source with the new tests: 3 failed, 3 passed (the 3 negative cases pass on master, as they should). Each failure shows a second heartbeat run (the new agent turn): `expected [ …(2) ] to deeply equal [ Array(1) ]`. - On this branch: 7 passed. A fourth negative case (an operator Stop while a hold is still settling keeps one new run) was added after review; it also passes on master. - Guard removal 1: with the `canResumePreservedResultFinalization` check replaced by `true`, the negative test "an operator Stop recorded on the run" fails (`expected [] to have a length of 1 but got +0`: the Retry waits forever instead of starting its one run). - Guard removal 2: with the "hold still saving" check removed, the test "holds a Retry dispatched while another saved-work hold of the run is still settling" fails (a second run starts). Related suites pass on this branch: `workspace-recovery-disk-full`, `workspace-recovery-preparation-gates`, `workspace-recovery-admission`, `native-exhausted-finalization-retry`, `explicit-native-continuation` (641 tests). On the first revision, `task-retry`, `workspace-recovery-retry-copyback`, `workspace-recovery-warm-handoff`, `preserved-native-response-wait.integration`, `deferred-execution-wait` and `deferred-execution-receipt-work` passed (317 tests). Other retry and recovery suites were not run locally; required CI `general_tests` covers them. After the review fixes, the five related suites above passed again (642 tests). `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` is clean. `pnpm verify --explain` selects a broad plan (exit 2) because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input. Required CI supplies that coverage. ## Risks - Behaviour change: an accepted Retry of a terminal run with an accepted, succeeded result and verified saved files now applies that result and starts no run. Before, it started one new run. This is the intended change. It also covers the s12 and RC-50b recovery-handoff cases, which used to start a new run. - A held Retry waits while any saved-work hold of the run is still saving. The recovery worker drives those holds to `complete` or `exhausted`. When a hold ends `exhausted` or the records do not prove the result, the wait ends and the Retry starts one run, as before. A hold that stays in `awaiting_evidence` keeps the Retry waiting with "Paperclip is finishing the saved result." - Upgrade-safe: no persisted shape changes. The checks read existing records (`native_run_results`, `native_run_finalizations`, the recovery action evidence, workspace receipts). A record written by an older server that lacks any required fact keeps the old behaviour. An older server that reads the new state sees a coalesced Retry and a re-armed finalization, which it already handles. - No new work before `turn.start` on the normal path. Admission adds the eligibility read only when it has already proven an accepted result and verified saved files for a Retry of that run. `resumeTaskRetry` adds one key read after admission. - Lock order: `resumePreservedResultFinalization` keeps the finalizer's order (coordinator, then issue, then run). Because it can now run beside Retry dispatch (which locks the issue first), it takes the issue and run rows with NOWAIT. A busy row ends the attempt, and it retries up to 9 times at 100 ms. The 10th attempt waits for its locks, as this resumption always did, so a recovered result is never left unapplied. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file editing, test execution) and extended reasoning. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>