mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
98d17da1e2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs persist their results and workspace before they release execution. > - A task monitor must wait for that settlement before it starts the next run. > - The scheduler checked provider status but did not check unfinished finalization. > - A timer could dispatch too early, then its old finalizer could no longer find the consumed schedule. > - This pull request delays dispatch and reconciles prior delivery from server records. > - The task can continue without repeating the provider turn or removing a newer run's ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run saved a yielded monitor result while workspace finalization needed recovery. Its timer dispatched after the provider stopped. The follow-up failed because the earlier run still held workspace recovery. The old finalizer then retried `monitor_wait_authority_lost` indefinitely. **Expected behavior** Timer dispatch waits for native finalization. If an older timer already dispatched, the finalizer uses its saved scheduling receipt and admitted successor to settle the old result. It preserves current task state and ownership. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a task monitor from a native run and save a yielded result. 2. Leave native finalization retryable after the provider reaches a terminal state. 3. Let the monitor become due. Before this change, the scheduler consumes it. 4. Restore workspace persistence and retry the old finalizer. Before this change, the missing schedule leaves it retryable. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `34be1b831bcaba070264ae8d214ceffe6a8f9eab`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source, with PostgreSQL and the native runner. Related recent recovery work: #16962 and #16963. No duplicate repair found for this failure. ## What Changed - Scheduled and manual monitor dispatch wait for unfinished native finalization. If the monitor expires during workspace recovery, the accepted result can settle into the persisted schedule, and the scheduler then applies its existing expiry policy. New monitor-wait results still require an unexpired, unexhausted schedule. - A narrow reader joins the run's server-issued monitor receipt to its durable wake and admitted successor. - The finalizer and locked status commit verify that evidence and preserve current task ownership. They do not create another wake. - Monitor delivery participates in assessment identity, so recovery can replace a prior error decision without violating the decision ledger's uniqueness constraints. - PostgreSQL regressions cover saved-result replay, active successors, wrong task or agent, missing receipts, unadmitted wakes, ownership races, and failed workspace persistence. - The execution contract and verification maps describe the recovery boundary. ## Verification - Red: the saved monitor regression remained `retryable_failure` instead of `committed` on unpatched code. - Red: the scheduler admitted a wake while terminal-run finalization remained retryable. - Red/green: two PostgreSQL cases reproduce timeout during workspace recovery for scheduled and manual checks. Before the review repair, both remain `retryable_failure` with `monitor_wait_authority_lost`. Afterward, both commit, apply board escalation once, preserve the saved result, and enqueue zero provider wakes. New completion still rejects the expired schedule. - Typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Build: `pnpm build` passed. - Maps: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Review: Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail Paperclip Review 5/5 on the current head, with no unresolved findings. Both reviews are static; execution evidence is recorded separately above and below. - Linux staging: the original repair passed 170 tests across monitor integration, scheduling, status arbitration, and workspace finalization. The expanded suite passes all 172 tests, including both new timeout regressions. - Live acceptance: deployed the original repair to the authorized Linux ARM64 self-hosted instance. The stranded saved result finalized automatically; the original task then completed through normal admission, with its final answer persisted after browser reload. The other original task was already complete and its external delivery was verified without repeating it. - The initial Mac regression run passed 68 tests, but three suites failed during embedded PostgreSQL startup. A subsequent focused run confirmed the host had exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphore allowance. Linux verification uses isolated databases; the local failure logs remain preserved. - The local full test suite is not claimed as passed. It is blocked by the same PostgreSQL startup limitation; full-suite CI passed on head `8bc29d1b7783446f397b858e558083570a96bb66` ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39447913466)). ## Risks - A delivery match must not grant new execution authority. The lookup requires the original run's server receipt and a matching company, agent, task, wake, and admitted successor. The locked commit rejects old-run checkout ownership and permits no status effects. - Workspace persistence must succeed before settlement. Its existing failure path remains effective. - The scheduler waits while a native finalizer is unfinished. Workspace recovery must settle before dispatch; elapsed monitor limits transfer to the existing scheduler recovery policy instead of stranding the result. Neither settlement path renews a deadline or changes budget, approval, pause, or provider authority. - No schema, migration, credential, or provider configuration change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>