mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 15:09:57 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
79c34058cd
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native agents can edit files in a remote sandbox before they submit a result. > - A process identity or startup failure can end the run before file export. > - Cleanup can then delete the sandbox and its unpublished files. > - This pull request retains the exact source and records a file repair action before cleanup. > - Operators can recover the files without replaying the failed turn or changing the task owner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native remote process had completed local edits when process identity recovery failed. The run still had a prepared workspace reference and no accepted result. Cleanup deleted the source sandbox. No file recovery card appeared. A restarted run can hit the same path during setup, before the native executor starts. **Expected behavior** Retain the exact unexported source. Show the existing file recovery card. Require source stop and file recovery evidence. Keep task ownership, status, and external action reconciliation separate from file repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native agent in a remote ephemeral workspace and make unpublished edits. 2. Fail process identity recovery before result acceptance or file export. 3. Allow failure handling and lease cleanup to run. 4. Before this change, cleanup can destroy the source without a file repair action. Refs: #16341 for related process identity diagnostics. Refs: #16349 for startup ownership fencing. This change addresses file retention after failure. ## What Changed - Record source retention and a file recovery action in the terminal native failure transaction. - Cover restarted preparation failures before the terminal setup writer and cleanup run. - Require the exact company, run, lease, provider allocation, and workspace binding. Require the exact live recovery claim to settle an owned preparation failure. Refuse stale or competing claims. - Reuse the existing stop-only cleanup and file-only reconciliation path. Leave accepted results and scheduled same-run recovery on their existing paths. - Document the retention rule and add database and runtime boundary regressions. ## Verification - All 1,242 tests passed across the full heartbeat recovery suite, native executor, native source retention, runtime teardown, run completion, and legacy file recovery. - The integrated missing-descriptor regression fails before the inner-handler fix and passes after it. The runtime retention and owned restart regressions also reproduce their prior failures. - The tests cover exact source identity, current and stale claims, atomic rollback, cancellation, idempotence, and file-only repair on a completed task. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the final code. - `pnpm build` passed on the final code. - Full repository CI passed on `3945eb2ba5c228c5d4992da02b765dcf2e634cb8`: 54 successful checks and two skipped Storybook checks. - Apex scored 5/5 on that exact commit. Both earlier findings are fixed and all review threads are resolved. - The unsharded local `pnpm test:run` is still in progress. It is not counted as a local full-suite pass; complete suite coverage is verified in CI. ## Risks - Failed runs can retain a sandbox that needs operator cleanup after file recovery. This uses the existing retention policy and recovery controls. - This does not recover files from allocations that were already deleted. - No schema migration, UI change, or telemetry change is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Tool use, code execution, and reasoning assisted this change. The environment identifies the model as GPT-6; it does not expose a more specific serving snapshot 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>