mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 22:56:58 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
2dd7a98753
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Recovery tells a waiting parent or dependent when a child or blocker stalls on the board (`issue_blocker_stalled`) > - A legacy child that an older release bound to its parent's remote workspace failed its save, and its save recovery was exhausted. Its ended run still holds the shared workspace, days past the one-hour holder cutoff > - Workspace reservation refuses a run on such a hold and fails setup with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." Every stall wake of the parent created a run that could only fail this way > - The stall sweep treated each failed run as an undelivered wake and retried it every ten minutes, with no backoff and no limit. On staging this made 72 failed runs (58 of 60 failures since a deploy), in pairs every ten minutes > - This pull request makes the stall sweep hold a wake while the waiter's workspace hold refuses a run, and bounds retries of a wake whose run fails > - The benefit is that a held workspace no longer produces a failed run every ten minutes, and the wake still arrives once the hold settles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A parent task was woken by `issue_blocker_stalled` twice every ten minutes. Each run failed in setup (`setup_failed`, `executionRecovery.kind=bootstrap`, `providerWorkStarted=false`) with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." The parent's remote workspace was held by a child's ended writer run whose save recovery was exhausted (`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, last failure `agent_stop_unconfirmed`). The child shared the parent's workspace because an older release created it before subtasks got their own workspace (#19860). **Expected behavior** A wake that cannot start because its workspace is held must not create a failed run every time. It should wait until the hold settles. Automatic retries must be bounded. **Root cause** - `server/src/services/heartbeat/workspace-preparation.ts` rethrows `RemoteWorkspaceWriterActiveError` as a setup failure when the ended writer is silent past `WORKSPACE_BUSY_HOLDER_STALE_AFTER_MS` (documented, intended). - `server/src/services/recovery/blocker-stall-wakeups.ts` retried every non-delivered wake row (including `failed`) after `REFUSED_WAKE_RETRY_MS` (10 minutes) with no backoff and no limit, and it did not check whether the waiter could start at all. ## What Changed - `remote-workspace-writer-hold.ts`: add `remoteWorkspaceHoldRefusesStart`, the one rule for a hold that reservation refuses outright (unattributed writer, or a writer silent past the cutoff with no live owner fence). - `workspace-preparation.ts`: use that rule instead of an inline copy, so reservation and wake senders cannot drift. - `blocker-stall-wakeups.ts`: before waking a waiter, read its bound remote workspace hold. When the hold refuses a run, do not wake it; count it as deferred and re-check at most hourly. A workspace with an unchanged-release baseline is left to reservation, which can release it. - `blocker-stall-wakeups.ts`: a stall wake whose run failed is retried after 10, then 20 minutes, and not after the third failed run. Refusals (wake-on-demand off, agent paused) keep the 10-minute retry. A new stall (new recovery action) wakes again. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document both rules. ## Verification - Red before the fix (`server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-stall-wakeups.test.ts`): 3 new tests failed. The held-workspace test got a delivered wake; the backoff test got a third wake 11 minutes after the second failure. - Green after the fix: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-blocker-stall-wakeups.test.ts` passes 20/20. - The new tests use the staging shape: a legacy `shared_workspace` remote workspace owned by the parent, a child bound to it, the child's failed native writer run ended four days ago with `native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, a dirty authority, and the child's board-owned exhausted recovery action. They also prove that a writer inside the cutoff still gets its wake (the run parks in a workspace wait), and that the wake is delivered once the hold settles. - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-remote-workspace-busy.test.ts`, `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`, `native-cancelled-workspace-preservation.test.ts`, `src/modules/run-dispatch`. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - `pnpm verify` exits 2 because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input; required CI supplies the broad coverage. ## Risks - Low. No schema or persisted-shape change. Saved state from the previous release (existing wake rows, existing workspace authority) is read as-is: earlier `failed` stall wake rows count toward the new three-run limit, which stops the current loop at once after deploy. - A parent whose workspace stays held is not woken for the stall until the hold settles. The stall is still listed on its page and the child's recovery action stays with the board. - Not fixed here: the exhausted save hold itself is never settled automatically (`agent_stop_unconfirmed` exhaustion in workspace recovery), and legacy children that still share a parent's workspace are not moved. Both touch workspace recovery code that is under concurrent change and are left for a follow-up. > 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, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser read-only inspection of staging). ## 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>