mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
aa6c9c3f25
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and preserves their work. > - Large workspace and skill objects use the shared S3 multipart uploader. > - The uploader waits for each part acknowledgement before it sends the next part. > - Storage request latency therefore accumulates once per part. > - This change overlaps up to four streamed part requests. > - One source reader preserves byte order and backpressure. > - Failure cancels and settles active requests before cleanup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #18082 added the shared streamed multipart uploader. #18644 fixes temporary disk use during workspace capture. It changes a separate stage. **What happened?** The shared S3 multipart uploader sends large object parts in sequence. The code waits for each `UploadPartCommand` before it consumes the next part. A controlled HTTP test confirms that only one complete part reaches the endpoint while its acknowledgement is held. **Expected behavior** Upload independent parts concurrently within a fixed limit. Preserve exact bytes, ordered completion receipts, source backpressure, cancellation, and full snapshot verification. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Upload a large stream through the S3 multipart provider. 2. Hold each successful part acknowledgement at a disposable storage endpoint. 3. Observe that the old uploader sends only one complete body until its acknowledgement returns. 4. Repeat with this change. Four complete bodies can reach the endpoint before the first acknowledgement. **Paperclip version or commit** Current source checkout. The affected uploader was introduced in #18082. **Deployment mode** Local source verification on macOS arm64 with Node 24.22.1, pinned pnpm 9.15.4, and locked dependencies. The HTTP tests use synthetic data and a disposable loopback endpoint. ## What Changed - Send up to four part requests at once through bounded streams. - Keep one source reader and retain the existing adaptive part-size policy. - Store successful receipts by part number before completion. - Cancel a stalled asynchronous source read without waiting for the source to produce more bytes. - Preserve the first error. Cancel sibling requests and settle them before multipart abort. - Cover exact bytes, out-of-order acknowledgements, backpressure, the concurrency limit, source errors, cancellation, and the real S3 HTTP client. - Document the transfer bound. Snapshot encryption, publication, and full object verification retain their existing behavior. ## Verification - Failing before the change: the held-acknowledgement regression expected four complete part bodies and received one. The same regression now passes. - All 15 focused multipart and storage-diagnostic tests pass. The real AWS S3 SDK sends four exact 8 MiB bodies through a disposable HTTP endpoint before any acknowledgement. Completion retains source order. - Controlled transfer comparison: one synthetic 64 MiB stream, eight 8 MiB parts, real S3 SDK and loopback HTTP, each acknowledgement delayed 100 ms. Original: 904 ms, peak one request. Fixed: 247 ms, peak four. Both transfers verified every part hash and completion order. This is local boundary evidence, not a hosted latency claim. - A second safety regression reproduced cancellation waiting indefinitely on a stalled asynchronous source. Abort-aware reads now settle within the existing bounded cleanup budget. - All nine existing encrypted snapshot storage tests pass after correcting missing library aliases in the local embedded-Postgres dependency. The failed setup attempt had no test verdict. - Full workspace typecheck and production build pass. The rebased server typecheck also passes. - The first full `pnpm test:run` attempt stopped during chat test collection with `No test found ... in lines ...` before a suite verdict. The chat test and line-selection scripts are unchanged from master. A retry after local Postgres dependency setup passed its first chat shards, then was stopped to avoid redundant host load after current-head CI passed every type/build/general/serialized/runner group. The unrelated narrow-banner E2E job failed its first attempt and passed one bounded retry; all current-head GitHub CI jobs are now green. There is no full local verdict. The separate Paperclip native review concluded neutral after reporting that work was paused; it supplied no substantive code review. - Commands: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run --configLoader runner src/__tests__/storage-s3-multipart.test.ts src/__tests__/storage-s3-failure-diagnostics.test.ts src/services/remote-workspace-snapshot-storage.test.ts`. - Deployment and an end-to-end hosted acceptance run remain separate steps. ## Risks - Four requests per upload increase concurrent storage traffic. Multiple simultaneous uploads multiply that bound. - Shared source consumption could reorder bytes. One producer and exact-content tests protect that boundary. - Failed siblings could outlive multipart cleanup. Cancellation and settlement tests protect cleanup order. - Capture and full read-back verification still take time. This change only targets serial multipart latency. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, shell execution, and automated tests. 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>