mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 22:56:58 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
f789f3e2af
## Thinking Path - Deleting an environment with consent destroys its kept sandboxes. #20085 added failed runs' restore-source sandboxes (`retain_on_failure`) to that teardown, and the delete dialog now tells the operator that the consented delete destroys those files. - But every teardown path refuses a lease whose sandbox carries a `workspaceRestoreRecovery` marker (`legacyShutdownWorkspaceResourceProtected`). That is correct for ordinary cleanup, since the files may be the only copy. - So the consented delete claimed the restore sources for cleanup, every teardown returned without destroying, and the delete returned 409 `pending_sandbox_cleanup` forever: a refusal the user cannot act on. - The operator's consent is exactly the decision the protection waits for, so the delete releases it explicitly and audits who did, then proceeds. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20048, follow-up to #20085 **What happened?** In Daytona warm wave w-20261108T192459-s9501, the harness's consented environment delete returned 409 `pending_sandbox_cleanup` for minutes (it retried every 3 s). Two restore-source leases (8b26e044, bcb897c9) had been claimed for cleanup with `environment_deleted`. The activity log shows a cleanup attempt on every retry, each returning without destroying. On the kept database copy, `legacyShutdownWorkspaceResourceProtected` returns `true` for both, because of their `workspaceRestoreRecovery` marker. Their restore recovery had already succeeded (workspace sync finalized). Phase 3 deleted the two sandboxes by hand. **Steps to reproduce** 1. A failed run leaves a `retain_on_failure` lease with `workspaceRestoreRecovery` metadata (sandbox stopped). 2. `DELETE /api/environments/:id?destroyReusableSandboxLeases=true`. 3. The lease is claimed (`pending_cleanup`), the teardown refuses it, and every retry of the delete returns 409. **Expected behavior** The consented delete destroys the restore source (the operator was told the files go with it) and the environment is deleted. No 409 the user can't act on. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts`: new `releaseRestoreSourcesForEnvironmentDelete({ environmentId, consentedBy })`. For each of the environment's restore-source sandboxes (`retain_on_failure` with `workspaceRestoreRecovery`, any non-terminal status including an earlier `pending_cleanup` claim), it removes the marker from every lease row on that sandbox and records `restoreSourceReleasedByEnvironmentDelete: { consentedBy, releasedAt }`. `destroyReusableSandboxLeasesForEnvironment` takes `consentedBy` and releases first. - `server/src/routes/environments.ts`: a consented delete whose only blockers are pending cleanup or kept sandboxes releases restore protection before the pending-cleanup retry, so leases an earlier attempt left claimed are freed too. It then passes `consentedBy` to the teardown. - Tests: - A restore source now carries the real `workspaceRestoreRecovery` marker, and the consented teardown destroys it. This failed before the fix (`{ destroyed: 0, failed: 1 }`), matching the wave. - The route test asserts the release runs before the pending-cleanup retry. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`: 347/347 pass. - The restore-source test fails on master with `failed: 1`. ## Risks - **Losing restore files without consent.** The release runs only on the explicit consented delete path (`destroyReusableSandboxLeases=true`), and only when the remaining blockers are pending cleanup or kept sandboxes. It is recorded on every released row. Leases with a pending native export are still skipped by the teardown. - **Ordinary cleanup.** Unchanged: restore protection still holds everywhere else. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool use and code execution, via Claude Code. ## 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 Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>