mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-10 01:50:13 +01:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
b61a815d3d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses a Runner to execute agent work. > - The Runner keeps a record of each tool call, called a receipt. > - When that storage reaches its limit, the Runner asks Codex to stop. > - Core can stop responding while the stop request is pending. > - Codex may already have written its completion behind earlier output. > - The Runner must keep its stop deadline and preserve that real completion. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19029. This is its first isolated slice; #19029 remains unmerged. Related #17594 covers controller replacement. Related #17516 retains receipts during explicit stop; this change handles the autonomous receipt-limit deadline. ## What Changed - Keep the existing 2s/30s stop deadlines while Core is offline, including when a connection waits for a reply. Other lease and runtime deadlines still apply. The Runner sleeps between connection attempts and deadline checks. - Stop the owned local Codex process when its deadline expires. Read its remaining output within the existing size and message limits, then process it in order. Only after output has ended and all earlier messages have been processed can the Runner report a missing completion. - After the local process has stopped as requested, skip replies that only reject or cancel old requests. Commands, user responses and actual tool results still require successful delivery. - Keep the stop behavior, regression tests and transport documentation in this slice. ## Verification Standalone checks on this branch: - Seven existing Codex tool-record limit integration cases pass. - Twenty focused checks cover deadline cleanup and retained output, including 273 distinct messages followed by one real completion, missing completion, and a pipe that stays open. - Separate checks cover strict tool-result delivery, three process-stop cases, and lease/runtime/reconnect time limits. - Four controller process tests pass. They include Core accepting a connection but never replying, and a reconnect delay longer than the allowed recovery period. - Existing warm attachment still retains the completed turn's remaining output and usage. - Rust formatting, diff checks and the local secret scan pass. The extraction first omitted an existing test helper and the connected retry preamble. Standalone compilation and receipt tests caught both omissions. Restoring them produced the results above. Full regression checks run in GitHub CI. Hosted CI passed both native platforms and typecheck, but [server11 failed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42118725143/job/127565828671) one unchanged status-card test. Its fake clock advances while real database work runs; the final clock assertion was 50 ms past its limit. The identical test, service and scheduler passed all 36 cases in [the earlier baseline shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42111889388/job/127541685625). The local comparison first needed a built SDK, then stopped at embedded Postgres startup before any test ran. It did not reproduce the assertion. The single failed-jobs-only retry passed. The original failure and the blocked local comparison remain recorded here; the retry does not establish a precise timing cause. At exact head `f453509e6f`, all 59 hosted checks completed: 55 succeeded and four were skipped. Snyk also passed. Standard review round 1 and selected review round 2 each scored 5/5 on this head, with no unresolved threads. ## Risks The Runner now stops its local Codex process at the original deadline even while Core is unavailable. If another program keeps the output pipe open, or queued output exceeds the existing limits, the Runner cannot confirm the outcome. It reports that uncertainty and keeps the records already written to disk. Tests use real child processes with controlled provider fixtures. Live provider and deployment qualification remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), high reasoning effort, through Codex. Used source inspection, native subprocess tests and targeted TypeScript tests. ## 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>