mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
838e9bf3d2
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before it asks a provider to create a sandbox, the server writes a creation intent that names its creator process > - If the creator dies during the provider call, the intent waits for a 30-minute settle deadline before recovery reconciles it with the provider > - After a restart, creation recovery made such intents due early with its own process check (`promoteAbandonedSandboxCreations`) > - Phase 2 of the durable ownership plan moves each in-progress record kind onto one shared owner proof and deletes its bespoke check > - This pull request registers a settle for `sandbox_creation_intent` and calls the shared path where creation recovery called the bespoke promotion > - The benefit is one proof for every kind, while the provider absence proof and the cross-host handoff stay unchanged ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19964 Refs #19933 **What happened?** Sandbox creation recovery had its own liveness check (`controllerProcessExited`) for the creator of a pending intent. Each kind with its own check can drift from the shared rules (PID space, PID reuse, current boot, deployment replacement). **Expected behavior** The shared prover judges the creator. On gone, the intent becomes due now and its creator is marked lost. Provider absence stays inconclusive until the settle deadline. A creator on another host is never proven gone; its intent keeps the deadline. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a sandbox acquire so a creation intent is written. 2. Kill the server before the provider reply is committed. 3. Restart. The intent must become due through the shared ownership path, not a separate check. ## What Changed - `sandbox-creation-intent-settlement.ts` (new): compare-and-swap settle on the exact creator and a deadline that is still in the future. It sets `nextAttemptAt` to now, marks `creationControllerLost` with the proof reason, and wakes creation recovery in the same transaction. - `recovery/ownership-registry.ts`: `sandbox_creation_intent` registers the settle. An intent whose creator is already lost is no longer listed; it belongs to the creation recovery deadline. - `sandbox-creation-operations.ts`: creation recovery calls `settleOwnableKind(db, "sandbox_creation_intent")`. Deleted `promoteAbandonedSandboxCreations` and its use of `controllerProcessExited`. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/sandbox-creation-intent-ownership.test.ts src/__tests__/sandbox-creation-operations.test.ts src/__tests__/ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts` (embedded Postgres). - The existing lost-creator matrix stays green on the shared path: destroy on the next sweep; page past unprovable creators; issue-bound creation after a later run; reused PID; live creator here; live creator in another process; creator on another host; early lookup finds nothing yet (absence inconclusive); committed lease untouched. - New, red on master and green here (written after the code): the reconciler pass makes a dead creator's intent due now and keeps the absence deadline. - New counter-cases (green): live creator, another host, and an intent without a creator keep their deadline; a read-only pass changes nothing. - Full typecheck is left to CI (local memory limit). ## Risks - Low risk. The settle writes the same state the deleted promotion wrote, plus the proof reason. - Previous-release rows: every creation intent already stored its creator with a PID space, so no fallback is needed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, embedded Postgres tests). ## 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>