mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
9ae3d8db3d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The queued-run gate can cancel a continuation that must wait for review. > - This cancellation happens before execution authority or a provider starts. > - Recovery currently treats the gate receipt as unknown provider execution. > - That mistake blocks a conversation after a successful reply and hides Retry. > - This pull request recognizes only the recorded, unclaimed review-wait state. > - Review waits keep their normal disposition path, and new user input can recover older false holds. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15015, #15020, and #15022. Related #11614 narrows the review posture that causes cancellation; this change corrects recovery after a valid cancellation. **What happened?** After a successful agent reply, the queued-run gate cancelled an automatic continuation with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The gate retained `timeoutSource: stale_queued_run_gate` and a matching stop reason. No execution authority or provider started. Recovery still created an unknown-action hold, moved the task to Blocked, and hid Retry. **Expected behavior** Use normal review-wait disposition repair for this recorded state. Allow Retry, a new user message, or saved undelivered input to recover an older false hold after ordinary admission checks pass. Preserve the cancelled run and do not replay its input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish an agent turn on an open task that has a real review target. 2. Let the automatic continuation reach the queued-run review gate. 3. Refresh after the cancelled run is checked by recovery. 4. Confirm a review wait is handled as a wait rather than unknown provider work. 5. Reproduce an older false hold for the same receipt, then request Retry or send a new message. 6. Confirm only one fresh turn starts, and contradictory execution or cleanup evidence retains the hold. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `215586d127`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Recognize the exact review-wait dispatch receipt only while all execution claims remain unset. - Exempt recovery only after checking retained launch and provider events, coordinators, and environment cleanup. Keep the synchronous classifier conservative without that database proof. - Apply the verified classification to automatic recovery, heartbeat retries, and stranded-queue release, so saved user input starts once. - Reuse guarded startup admission for Retry, new input, and saved input on older false holds. - Show a precise review-wait notice and keep continuation guidance consistent with Retry availability. - Verify provider events, launch events, coordinators, and cleanup before admission. - Add five initial red regressions, three additional red recovery evidence regressions, concurrent saved-input coverage, and negative evidence checks. - Document the review-wait contract. ## Verification - Red: five regressions fail on unchanged master. Existing review-wait and contradictory-evidence cases still pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - All 752 affected recovery, continuation, queue, classification, and retry-scheduling tests pass. - Three additional review regressions failed before the database proof was added; all 12 focused review-wait cases then pass. - Workspace `pnpm build` passes. - Saved-input promotion and recovery notice regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. - Current-head CI has 54 passing checks and 2 skipped optional Storybook checks. Greptile reviewed `0bf1437110e1617ae4544afa41f4319eac763dba` at 5/5 with zero open findings. The complete suite runs in sharded CI. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed; an earlier long run was stopped, and its unrelated failing case passed in isolation. ## Risks The error code alone cannot establish that no provider started. This exception also requires the server gate receipt, matching stop reason, and null execution authority fields. User admission separately checks coordinator, launch and provider events, environment cleanup, pending decisions, ownership, task holds, budget, and active execution. No migration or dependency change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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>