mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
b6f58dc6e2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A managed runtime control (start, stop, restart, repair, run) on an execution workspace writes a `running` operation row that blocks every other control on that workspace > - If the server that ran it crashes, the row stays `running` until the next control request sweeps it. The sweep had its own `kill(pid, 0)` check, with no process start time, so a reused PID looked alive until 60 s of heartbeat silence passed > - The durable ownership plan proves owners by identity through one shared prover and settles them from one reconciler > - This pull request stamps the owner's boot id and start time, judges it with `proveOwnerGone`, and registers a settle for the kind > - The benefit is that a workspace stranded by a crashed server frees itself in the next reconciler pass, and a reused PID no longer holds it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831 (plan, Phase 2 sections A and C), #19838 (inventory: "Managed runtime-control operation", and the "One fact, many proofs" table row `ownerProcessIsAlive` workspace-operations.ts). **What happened?** `workspace_runtime_control_operation` was a report-only kind with a bespoke liveness check: `ownerProcessProvenGone` probed the PID with signal 0 and had no start time. A server restart that reused the PID kept the operation "alive" until its heartbeat aged out, and nothing settled the row until another control request arrived. **Expected behavior** The owner is proven by the shared prover: a dead or reused PID in the stamp's PID space is gone. Another host, a stamp without a PID space, or a live PID without a recorded start time stays unprovable and keeps the heartbeat lease as its fenced takeover at the next control. ## What Changed - `workspace-operations.ts`: - The owner stamp adds the server's `bootId` and `processStartedAt` (`currentRuntimeControlOwner`, no I/O). - The new `runtimeControlOperationOwnerStamp` is shared with the registry. - The sweep proves the owner with `proveOwnerGone`. `ownerProcessProvenGone` is deleted. - The terminal CAS and log append are factored out (`claimRuntimeControlTermination`, `appendRuntimeControlReconciliationLog`). - New `settleRuntimeControlOperation` for the reconciler: it skips operations this process is driving, requires the same owner as the proof, CAS-fails the row and writes a `workspace_operation.reconciled` activity entry. - `recovery/ownership-registry.ts`: the kind uses the shared stamp and registers the settle. - The settling-kinds list in `ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts` is updated. ## Verification - `workspace-runtime-control-recovery.test.ts`: 21 pass. The 6 new tests are in "shared ownership path". 5 fail on `master` and pass here: - a reused PID is recovered at once; - the reconciler settles a dead owner with activity and frees control; - an unprovable owner is never settled, and a read-only pass changes nothing; - a re-stamped owner is kept; - new operations carry the boot id and start time. The live-owner guard passes on both. - `ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts` (25), `workspace-operations-reconciliation.test.ts` (9) and `execution-workspace-runtime-control-conflict.test.ts` (24) pass. - The server package typecheck passes. ## Risks - Rows written before this change have no start time. A live PID on such a row stays unprovable, and the 60 s heartbeat lease still applies at the next control. A dead PID is still proof. - The reconciler now terminalizes these rows. It does so only on `gone`, and only with the same owner and an `updated_at` CAS. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>