mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
b4315943e8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip preserves agent work across separate execution services. > - A remote retry can create a new isolated Git workspace. > - Later admissions compare its saved configuration with the current policy. > - Fresh preparation also creates a temporary controller-side strategy. > - Remote preparation saved that temporary strategy in its fingerprint. > - The next unchanged turn then reported a workspace strategy replacement. > - This change saves the admitted remote strategy so unchanged reuse stays stable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related preparation work: #18543 and #17924. I searched open and merged workspace/session repairs and public workspace-strategy issues. None covers this fresh remote retry case. **What happened?** After Retry created an isolated remote Git workspace, each unchanged follow-up reported `workspace_config_freshness` with `action: replace` and `changedCategories: [strategy]`. It retained the same workspace. The stored fingerprint contained `project_primary`, which was only a temporary controller provisioning choice. **Expected behavior** Save the configured remote strategy. An unchanged follow-up must reuse the same workspace without a false replacement report. A real strategy, base-ref, mode or environment change must retain its replacement checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Prepare a fresh isolated remote Git retry with a `git_worktree` strategy. 2. Complete its runtime handoff. 3. Admit another turn with the same workspace policy. 4. Inspect the recorded workspace freshness decision. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `b9e94b85a69bf679818eeef9ecf4655554a89c6b`. The regression also fails on the unchanged preparation code in the current base. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with remote workspace authority and a sandbox execution target. ## What Changed - Keep the admitted strategy when a fresh workspace uses remote authority. - Retain the temporary controller strategy for existing host-side seed preparation. - Extend the PostgreSQL preparation test through a fresh admission and its next ordinary admission. Assert the same workspace, current writer and stable fingerprint, with no false drift operation. - Cover a genuinely configured `project_primary` fresh remote Git retry followed by a real strategy change, preserving its replacement decision and stored fingerprint. - Document the execution rule and the separate live verification recipe. ## Verification - The final regression was run before and after the production change. Before: the next admission recorded a strategy replacement. After: unchanged reuse records no drift and retains the workspace and fingerprint. - All 312 targeted cases pass on `48b3e548afa42e740871feae2763d88fd5a00431` across workspace preparation, workspace/session policy and inherited session preparation. These include actual strategy/base-ref changes and the rule that explicit reuse must not hide real replacement-class drift. - All eight remote preparation cases also pass with the compatibility regression: a genuinely configured `project_primary` fresh Git retry creates a `git_worktree` row, and its later real strategy change retains the replacement decision and saved fingerprint. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Full recursive typecheck and `pnpm build` pass locally on this head. - The [full current-head CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41524105868) passes: typecheck/build, all general server, chat, workspace and serialized test groups, plus Runner and E2E checks. The workflow and `run-vitest-stable.mjs` partition the complete suite. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` passed all 1,828 chat cases and was intentionally stopped during general-server after the same complete CI matrix passed. This is not recorded as a full local-suite pass. - Greptile and Paperclip Review both assessed this head at 5/5 with no new findings. Paperclip Review accepted the compatibility boundary after the counterexample; its check conclusion is neutral. The addressed review thread is resolved. - The regression uses real PostgreSQL and preparation policy. Runtime acquisition is controlled at its external boundary. The new fix has not been deployed; live provider resumption remains unverified for this patch. ## Risks - Existing incorrect fingerprints are not rewritten. The same stored shape can come from a genuinely configured `project_primary` remote Git retry; a Git workspace row alone cannot prove the old admission policy. Rewriting it would hide a real policy change. After preserving and inspecting retained work, an explicitly admitted fresh recovery after rollout establishes a correct new fingerprint. Ordinary reuse of the old workspace does not migrate it. Normal recovery gates remain required. - Real policy changes still use the current replacement guard. No schema, credential or authority change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Codex with reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, PostgreSQL tests and browser inspection. The host does not expose the exact model variant 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>