mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-10 01:50:13 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
9197abf673
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native continuity replacement must preserve the state needed to recover saved work. > - The current replacement moves local controller files before it knows whether the remote archive succeeded. > - A remote failure then leaves the local controller without its recovery files. > - This pull request confirms the remote archive before it moves those files. > - A user turn that never started can use the existing bounded Retry path after verified preservation and cleanup. > - The task retains its saved work and can continue once under current user authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19638, #19547, #19399 and #19659. The prerequisite #19638 merged as `0819f4ea78dd37fba87341b314be9dac078c1410`. This PR now targets master. A normal dependency integration at `febed950f4` keeps only the six-file archive repair in the PR diff. Fresh master-based CI and review are required before merge. **What happened?** A native continuity replacement moved its local controller journal and provider checkpoint. The following remote archive failed. A later recovery attempt could no longer read the local recovery files. The first-attempt failure also had no normal Retry receipt for the saved user turn. **Expected behavior** A failed or timed-out remote archive retains the local recovery files and starts no replacement provider. A user turn that has not started can request one normal Retry. The existing user, provider-turn, Stop, preservation, cleanup, budget and approval gates remain in force. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Keep a local controller journal and provider checkpoint for a retained remote conversation. 2. Request continuity replacement and fail or time out the remote archive command. 3. Check the local controller files before any later recovery. 4. Settle the native failure under a current user wake and recover the saved workspace. ## What Changed - Confirm remote continuity archiving before moving the local controller state. - Add the exact remote archive failure to the shared bounded user Retry admission from #19638. - Verify failed, timed-out and successful archive ordering with real local files. - Verify ordinary failure settlement and saved-file recovery produce one fresh successor. Keep Stop, system wake and unsettled-provider holds. - Document the file preservation and Retry contract. ## Verification - RED: failed and timed-out remote archives removed the local controller files. Reading those files failed with ENOENT. The saved-user Retry request returned false instead of true. - Initial archive unit verification: eight cases passed, including the three archive outcomes and five existing Cloud archive safety cases. - Initial stacked revision: `9104ee399b`, based on #19638 at `d22d8f9d5ee3dc36550a94d55c1d8376f3b9aab2`. - Final master-based revision: `febed950f4`. All 13 affected cases passed across three Vitest files after dependency integration. They include the seven-mode real PostgreSQL completion case, saved-file successor and negative-hold cases, and real-file archive outcomes. All seven server typecheck layers passed again. Module boundary, whitespace and added-code-comment checks passed. All required CI passed on this exact head. The final snapshot has 59 successful checks, three intended skips, one neutral result, and no pending or failed checks. Current-head Greptile and the independent review are both 5/5, with no open findings. - Final local revision: `9104ee399b`, macOS ARM64, Node 26.4.0, pnpm 9.15.4 and embedded PostgreSQL. The three real-file archive outcome cases passed. The real PostgreSQL completion test passed all seven internal scenarios, including archive failure, prior provider activity, system wake, Stop before and after terminal settlement, and stale runtime promotion. Own Runner/shared/SDK builds and all seven server typecheck layers passed. Nine saved-work continuation and negative-hold cases passed. They verify exported file contents, one user-attributed fresh successor, idempotent hooks, no second automatic chain, and first-use manual Retry for held cases. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, whitespace checks and the added-code-comment audit passed. - Focused commands from `server/`: Vitest with `-t 'retains the local controller checkpoint until remote continuity archiving succeeds'`; `-t 'replays saved user intent through normal Retry'`; and `-t 'continues a user turn once|does not continue automatically'`. PostgreSQL cases used a fresh local cluster and a 120-second setup hook budget. Application timeouts were unchanged. - The initial stacked head passed all test, build, typecheck and E2E jobs. Greptile and the independent review both scored it 5/5 with no findings. These results do not replace the fresh master-based qualification now running. ## Risks - A remote command can fail after it changed remote state. This change retains local evidence in that case. It does not claim a distributed atomic transaction. - The exact archive error can request one normal Retry only under the existing saved-user admission. The normal path must prove stop, saved files and cleanup before a successor starts. - The protected launch-argument rejection remains enforced. Its exact hosted argument difference was not available through ordinary access. #19659 separately addresses a saved-thread feature-policy argument difference. This PR preserves local archive evidence and does not claim direct hosted verification of that primary cause. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 family through Codex, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The model is inherited; no override was used. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime. ## 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>