mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 19:35:13 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
9ae4c25e7e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native Runner starts provider runtimes in remote execution environments. > - Sandbox images already contain qualified provider packs. > - Startup required the image pack to match the entire current app release manifest. > - An unrelated app commit could therefore cause pack verification, transfer, and installation again. > - This pull request selects protected packs by their provider interface and platform. > - The benefit is no extra pack probe, directory scan, version command, link, or upload on the compatible image path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Starting a remote task can reject a compatible image pack because its source revision or unrelated provider differs from the controller. Pack replacement added about 16 seconds in the investigated startup. Startup also repeated full content checks. **Expected behavior** Use an already qualified, protected pack when its selected provider interface and target platform are compatible. Keep the selected artifact identity for process launch and recovery. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a qualified provider pack in a sandbox image. 2. Start a controller built from another app commit. 3. Start a remote OpenCode task. The old complete-manifest comparison rejects the image pack even when the provider interface still works. Related repairs: #16493 reduced transfer cost. #17512 retained exact artifact authority during reattachment. This change preserves that recovery rule and changes fresh-launch pack selection. ## What Changed - Add explicit OpenCode and ACPX interface revisions to produced pack manifests. App Git SHAs and dependency pins remain provenance. - Read bounded protected-installation metadata in the existing final runner metadata query. Accept only root-owned paths that the execution user cannot write, including ancestors and manifest. Reject writable aliases. - Select and prepare the pack in server-owned environment setup before constructing the existing transport. Bind provider launch paths and digests from the selected installation. Save that identity for exact reattachment. - Keep full content verification for uploads, writable installations, and legacy packs. Reuse successful verification within one startup. Keep older attached runners compatible with the optional metadata request. - Seal image packs and document the one-time image refresh that enables reuse across later compatible releases. Keep selected ACPX agent qualification checks. ## Verification - Red/green regression: the old code rejects a protected pack from another app revision with `manifest mismatch`; the fixed path selects it without executing verification commands. - Native startup regression: select the installed pack's own Node digest with one existing runner metadata request and no pack verification or version commands. - Targeted pack, artifact, recovery, execution-driver, and Rust metadata tests pass. Incompatible interfaces/platforms, malformed identities, writable roots, path aliases, and exact reattachment are covered. - Final revision `91dc1676ff67bdbe5866c8586daac10240530cca`: workspace typecheck and build pass. All 53 current-head checks are successful, with no pending or failed checks. Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` attempt reported a workspace-runtime conflict test failure; its isolated rerun passed. The broad run was stopped after that failure. Full CI now passes, including the server test shards. This is not a claim that the full local run passed. - Linux filesystem evidence: the production metadata functions read a real root-owned preinstalled pack as a non-root user in 16 microseconds median and 20 microseconds p95 across 100 warm reads. This measures metadata admission, not model or hosted response latency. - All 910 affected server tests and 57 Copilot attestation tests pass locally on the final implementation. Full CI covers the unchanged Runner transport. No provider qualification hash was refreshed. - Built the actual Linux daemon at `416e7ec7425d0d3565b4a5e1808002d650a60414` and ran its metadata command as UID 65534. The protected installation returned its real manifest with `immutable: true`; writable alias and missing-pack cases returned `immutable: false`. This is metadata/permission evidence, not provider execution. - Hosted rollout and a hosted end-to-end latency measurement have not run. ## Risks - Existing images need one rebuild to publish the compatibility declaration. Packs without it keep the legacy content-verification path. - Fast admission relies on image publication producing a qualified protected tree. Root execution and task-writable installations retain full verification. - Bump an interface revision when required runner/pack behavior changes incompatibly. Deploy a new image to roll out compatible runtime fixes or upgrades. - This removes provider-pack preparation delay. Other runner startup, context, model, and finalization costs remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, configured model `gpt-6.1-sol`, reasoning effort `xhigh`, with tool use and code execution. The context-window size is 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>