mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
0fe47882cf
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner supports authenticated provider ingress. > - Each listening Runner currently binds port 43127. > - Concurrent Runner processes on one computer need distinct listening ports. > - This pull request permits an explicit listening port and retains the default. > - Providers can route each run without changing the Runner protocol. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Paperclip Runner launch and durable transport. **Problem or motivation** Two listening Runner processes in one network namespace cannot bind the same fixed port. The CLI accepts a port flag but rejects every value except 43127. **Proposed solution** Accept `--listen-port` values from 1 through 65535. Default to 43127 when the flag is omitted. Preserve the wildcard bind address, exact run path, PRP authentication, and secure frames. A warm attachment retains its existing listening port. **Alternatives considered** Separate network namespaces or a shared Runner daemon need more changes. Configurable launch ports preserve the existing process model. **Roadmap alignment** This extends existing Cloud / Sandbox agent support. The duplicate search found no matching Runner listener-port change. ## What Changed - Default an omitted listener port to 43127 and reject invalid values. - Validate configurable ports in the durable transport. - Reuse the selected port during warm attachment and reject port changes. - Cover default and explicit ports, invalid input, concurrent listeners, and warm attachment. - Update transport documentation. Daytona still uses its existing default port. ## Verification - Native `cargo test --locked --workspace` passed (two existing tests ignored). - Targeted listener and CLI tests passed, including executable launches on two concurrent ports and warm listener retention. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - Complete GitHub CI is green, including general and serialized test suites, all browser shards, Runner Rust/Vitest lanes, builds, and release checks. - The additional full local `pnpm test:run` is still running; no final local result is claimed. - `git diff --check` passes. ## Risks An explicit port can already be occupied. Runner fails its bind without choosing a different port. Port allocation and ingress authorization remain provider responsibilities. No schema or PRP wire format changes. Existing explicit port 43127 callers continue to work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, and code execution. The session does not expose the exact model ID or context window. ## 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>