mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 19:35:13 +01:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
832c44f26a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution control plane saves user messages while an earlier run needs recovery. > - A user comment can also assign a task back to its agent. > - That update creates an assignment wake, but continuation accepted only comment wake reasons. > - The saved question could stay blocked after workspace recovery and confirmed process cleanup. > - This pull request admits assignment wakes that carry a valid, undelivered user comment through the existing continuation checks. > - The same rule applies to new messages and saved requests already waiting for recovery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A human follow-up that also assigns a task back to its agent produces `issue_assigned`. After a native run stops during handoff, the continuation policy rejects that wake reason. The question remains saved behind the execution recovery hold even after the workspace is recovered and the old sandbox is destroyed. **Expected behavior** Deliver the saved human question once after the existing stop, ownership, authority, and execution gates pass. Assignment alone must not grant permission to continue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish task work by assigning it to a human for review. Let the native run stop with `issue_reassigned` and retain its recovery hold. 2. Recover the workspace and confirm destruction of the old sandbox. 3. Post a new human question while assigning the task back to the agent. 4. Observe that the assignment wake stays deferred instead of delivering the question. Refs: #17288, #14156. These related changes cover legacy reassignment and assignments without comments. This change covers a human comment carried by an assignment wake behind a native or legacy continuation hold. ## What Changed - Share the comment-bearing wake classification between continuation admission and saved-request recovery. - Accept `issue_assigned` only through the existing persisted user-comment validation and execution gates. - Add database regressions for new and saved assignment wakes, concurrent recovery, single delivery, and unchanged prior run results. - Check that bare assignments, invalid authors and comments, changed ownership, active execution, and pending approvals or questions retain their holds. Cover native and legacy cleanup paths. - Update execution semantics and both recovery maps. ## Verification - Red: both new and saved assignment-with-comment cases stayed deferred without a successor on the original code. - Green: the final continuation suite passes all 284 tests. The four companion recovery, retry, and queue suites pass another 208 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - `git diff --check`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` pass. - Apex review is 5/5 on `56c9c2d90dcda55b3f760946c9aba6aee448c361`, with no unresolved review threads. The only earlier finding concerned the contribution rule against new source comments; those comments were removed. - Full `pnpm test:run` is still running locally. CI is waiting for the `paperclip-public-pr-x64` runner fleet; the superseded workflow was cancelled so the current head could proceed. No passing CI claim is made yet. - Live recovery: corrected one existing saved wake to the supported comment reason. The normal server admitted one successor with the exact saved question and prior-run context, then started real tool calls. This verifies admission on the existing deployment; the new source change is not deployed yet. The resumed turn later failed with a separate provider terminal event whose error was null, followed by a workspace restore failure. The task is blocked again on that failure. Its useful answer has not been delivered, so end-to-end completion remains unverified. ## Risks - Assignment wakes now reach continuation validation when they carry a comment. The persisted comment must still belong to the task and requesting human, follow the stopped run, and remain undelivered. - The existing stop proof, cleanup, current assignment, approval, pause, budget, and competing-execution checks remain effective. Regression cases cover both native and legacy paths. - No schema migration or data rewrite is required for saved requests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, source inspection, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact 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 - [ ] 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>