mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Fable 5.2
a4b872477e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task can be bound to a chat conversation (Slack, Telegram). Confirmation cards are published there > - The assignee's running turn can record the user's chat reply as the decision on a card (resolve-from-comment). That run already owns the decision, and the in-app route does not wake the agent again > - The chat continuation worker (`interaction_wakeup`) still woke the assignee for that decision > - The wake waited behind the running turn. When it was promoted, the reply was already delivered, so its context kept `source: chat:<provider>` but no chat message > - Reviewed-chat attestation then refused the run (`reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`, `context_mismatch`). The refusal is correct; the wake should not exist > - This pull request makes the worker settle that action without a wake > - The benefit is no failed setup run on the task, and no change to any permission check ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20809 **What happened?** On staging, an automation-triggered run failed in about 5 s with `setup_failed` and error `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized` (denial reason `context_mismatch`). The task was bound to a Slack thread and was `in_review`. The assignee's previous run had recorded the user's Slack reply as acceptance of a plan confirmation and kept working. The chat continuation worker then queued a second wake for the same decision. That wake carried no undelivered chat message, so attestation found zero admitted comment ids. **Expected behavior** No second wake. The responding run already acts on the decision, as in the in-app path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind a task to a Slack conversation and publish a `request_confirmation` card with `continuationPolicy: wake_assignee`. 2. While the assignee's run is active, the user replies in Slack. The run calls `POST /api/issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/resolve-from-comment`. 3. The worker processes the `interaction_wakeup` chat action and wakes the assignee. The wake is deferred behind the active run and loses the delivered reply. With the task `in_review`, the next run fails attestation. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/chat-channels/interactions/continuations.ts`: when the current interaction was resolved by the assignee's own run from a comment (`resolvedByAgentId` is the assignee, `resolvedByRunId` is set, no `resolvedByUserId`, and `result.commentId` is set; only resolve-from-comment writes that), the worker marks the action `processed` with `interaction_wakeup_owned_by_responding_run` and creates no wake. Actions saved before the deploy take the same path. - `server/src/__tests__/chat-interaction-publications.test.ts`: real resolve-from-comment flow (no wake) and the board-accept control (one wake). - Reviewed-chat attestation and every authorization check are unchanged. ## Verification - Red on master: the new test fails, `wakeup` called 1 time. - Green: `server/src/__tests__/chat-interaction-publications.test.ts` 32/32 pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes. ## Risks - Low. Only a self-resolved, comment-recorded decision skips the wake. A user decision through a chat button or the board still wakes the assignee. - Not covered here: a user decision made through a chat button while another run of the task is active can still be deferred and lose its chat comment id. That is a separate case and is not changed by this PR. > 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 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com>