mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
915edcff49
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Durable workspace migration must retain saved files and pending recovery work. > - An archived Git workspace can have an authenticated restore recipe and a terminal native run with pending remote files. > - Its task can select a different workspace. Reopening the archived workspace would change that task. > - The current migration owner refuses this source because it has no live local directory. > - This pull request uses the existing online recovery preservation owner for this exact archived recipe case. > - Migration retains the old task, provider allocation, recovery action, and native sync reference. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20298, #20394, and #20418. Related cleanup work in #19812 does not cover this migration case. **What happened?** A historical archived Git workspace with a saved restore recipe and a terminal prepared native sync reference cannot migrate online. Admission reports `remote_copyback_unresolved` and `workspace_recovery_unresolved`. The old task can already select another workspace, so reopening it is not a safe migration path. **Expected behavior** Authenticate the archived files into private scratch. Preserve all typed native and provider recovery obligations in the existing migration journal and markers. Keep the original task selection, history, archive state, and restore flags unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Archive a Git worktree with staged, unstaged, and untracked files in a saved recipe. 2. Retain a terminal failed native run, its prepared sync reference, and its matching remote allocation and recovery action. 3. Remove the old local worktree and select a different workspace on the task. 4. Call `migrateRemoteWorkspace` without `writersStopped`. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `b2a7d322ed0bafda04a0b78ce14e4f25c8d5d170`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with PostgreSQL and configured object storage. ## What Changed - Permit the existing online recovery owner to inspect recipe-backed archived Git sources. - Acquire the existing native finalization locks for those sources. Reinspect their exact proofs after lock acquisition and before publication. - Lock related source-task ancestry before publication. - Reuse the existing private Git restore, authenticated archive, journal, marker, and recovery-source contracts. Add no schema or provider calls. - Leave active sources and archived sources without a valid recipe on their existing refusal paths. - Include the shared UI correction from #20418. A nullable draft override follows fresh task data when the user has no local choice. Explicit choices increment a generation. Normal and recovered successful sends clear only their own choice; failed sends and newer choices remain intact. ## Verification - Unchanged master RED: the new historical-source fixture fails with `remote_workspace_migration_blocked:remote_copyback_unresolved,workspace_recovery_unresolved`. - Five focused real PostgreSQL, filesystem, Git, and encrypted-storage tests pass on Node 24.22.2. The success case loses an upload reply, resumes the same operation and snapshot, restores the staged/unstaged/untracked bytes, and verifies unchanged task history, lease, recovery action, finalizer, and recipe flags. - Recipe, prepared reference, and provider allocation changes during the actual upload each refuse publication. A competing native finalization owner refuses before capture. - Migration command: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/remote-workspace-migration.test.ts -t 'unselected archived recipe|archived prepared source|competing native F owner'`. - All server typecheck layers, module boundary checks, and whitespace checks pass for the migration revision. The migration source bytes remain unchanged through the shared UI follow-ups. - Initial CI run 42727051535 exposed an existing planning-mode browser failure: shard 3/8 passed 33 cases but the refreshed task mode did not appear. The same issue occurred twice on #20418. A real local regression proved that initial cached data could leave the composer in its old mode. This path does not invoke migration. - Review then exposed genuine defects in the initial shared UI repair: an optimistic save rollback could reset a failed draft, and an earlier send could replace a newer draft choice. Recovered delivery also left a consumed choice pinned. All three have real RED→GREEN controls. The final shared fix uses an explicit nullable override, a choice generation, and one attempt-bound settlement owner for normal and recovered success, with no value-equality inference or durable payload changes. - Exact shared UI source now passes all 145 composer tests (2.88s), the original desktop/mobile planning browser case (15.5s; assertions and timeouts unchanged), token gates, and the canonical UI typecheck. The test harness uses the full persisted `IssueWorkMode` type, including `skill_test`, to fix the observed CI typing failure. - These UI results are reused from the identical shared source in #20418 through `ba1f85f18085dd0e84c594ed0cb68d5bf817c93c`. The unchanged planning browser pass is on the explicit-state model before the later settlement-helper extraction. The final receipt/resend controls, full composer suite, typecheck, and token gates include that extraction. They do not claim a local browser run on this entire combined branch. Fresh required CI and review qualify this PR head. - Previous-release state: existing recipe, v3 prepared reference, and journal shapes carry forward unchanged. A saved partial operation resumes with the same IDs. Migration does not certify remote file recovery or provider termination. Live provider recovery and hosted migration remain separate acceptance steps. ## Risks The change admits one more source class into an existing preservation path. An incorrect proof could publish incomplete file authority. The canonical recipe validation, full authenticated restore, native finalization locks, source reinspection, and publication checks remain mandatory. Pending remote data stays pending and retains its original allocation and reference. The shared UI repair updates only an unchanged draft mode; its regression checks preserve a local user choice. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a deployment suffix 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 - [ ] 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>