mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
444b4de693
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributors wait for PR CI before merge, and a flaky test forces a re-run of the whole CI run > - Two CLI tests failed several times on 2026-11-06 on commits that passed on a later attempt > - Both failures came from time limits on CPU-contended 4-vCPU runners, and both appeared in the same jobs > - One cause is a slow checksum loop that the CLI's own zip writer also uses > - This pull request removes that cost and gives the e2e child server a startup budget that covers a cold start > - The benefit is fewer whole-run re-runs, and faster large-package zips for CLI users ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Two tests in `cli/src/__tests__` failed in PR CI and passed on a re-run of the same commit: - `company-import-transfer.test.ts` › "resolveChunkedImportZip › takes the chunked path…" failed with `Test timed out in 5000ms` (2 times). - `company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` failed with `Timed out waiting for the child server` (3 times). **Expected behavior** Both tests pass on a loaded CI runner. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the `cli` Vitest project with `--maxWorkers=4` in a 4-CPU container (`docker run --cpus=4 --memory=16g`), with a 4-thread CPU load in that container and a fresh `TMPDIR`. 2. Before this change, both tests fail in 3 of 3 runs. ## What Changed - `cli/src/commands/client/zip.ts`: the stored-zip writer uses `crc32` from `node:zlib` instead of a bitwise JavaScript loop. The CLI uses this writer for packages past the chunked-import threshold. Over about 64 MB, the old loop takes about 14 seconds and `zlib.crc32` takes 35 ms. `zlib.crc32` has been in Node since 22.2, and the engines field requires Node 24.11 or later. - `cli/src/__tests__/company-import-transfer.test.ts`: the fixture's zip builder uses `zlib.crc32` too. - `cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts`: - add `SERVER_STARTUP_TIMEOUT_MS = 90_000` for `waitForServer`, which was 30 seconds; - set the `beforeAll` timeout to that value plus 30 seconds for the database start; - a comment gives the measurements. A child that exits early still fails at once. No assertions change. ## Verification - **Cause of the e2e failure:** `paperclipai run` loads the CLI and the server from source through tsx, and every CI run starts with a cold tsx cache. - The server is slow to start, not hung. With a larger budget at heavy load, startup took 50 to 55 seconds. - Passing CI jobs already used 15 to 25 seconds of the 30-second budget. - In the failed logs, nothing comes from the server after "Starting Paperclip server...". - **Container reproduction** (4 CPUs, 16 GB, a 4-thread load in the same container, cold tsx cache, full `cli` project with 4 workers): | State | Result | Dense-zip test | Oversized-folder test | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Before | failed 3/3 (child-server timeout; the dense test also timed out in one run) | 4.6–5.5 s | 2.7–3.2 s | | CRC fix only | the e2e test still failed 3/3 | 0.8–1.3 s | — | | Full fix | all 65 files passed 3/3 | 0.7–1.3 s | 0.15–0.2 s | - `pnpm typecheck` in `cli`: passes. - Host run with `--maxWorkers=2` of the changed and related files: 4 files, 23/23 pass. ## Risks - The e2e change is a larger time budget, not a faster start. A real startup regression now takes up to 90 seconds to fail. - Each "after" result comes from 3 runs, which is a small sample. - `zlib.crc32` returns the same unsigned 32-bit value as the old loop. The existing zip round-trip tests cover this. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use and code execution. A Claude sub-agent found the causes and made the fix, and the parent session reviewed it. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>