mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 20:34:57 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
b1efd65edc
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart. > - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent execution hold. > - That hold could also reject a later user message. > - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior tool calls. > - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue within the existing retry budget. > - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter. **Expected behavior** Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user request through the normal execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter. 2. Restart the server while the provider is working. 3. Let the previous run become interrupted. 4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old behavior. Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation recovery through the existing bounded scheduler. ## What Changed - Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules. - Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP session history even when a write outcome is unknown. - Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use full task context. - Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its retry takes ownership. - Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and do not wake historical tasks. - Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while deferred messages and execution remain gated. - Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution contract. - Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary. Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while still asserting both processes terminate. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Build passed: `pnpm build`. - Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites overlap. - Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries, restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates, and historical holds. - Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner verification. - Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased. - Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests. Token gates and whitespace validation pass. - Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write. - Final-head [CI run 34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394) passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes. - Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency, approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force. - No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded without changing task status or waking work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific model build ID or context-window size. ## 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>