mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 06:02:18 +02:00
bcfc03bc94
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner can run an external Grok bot. Paperclip offers the bot an assignment and sends a webhook wake. The bot must accept the assignment in 10 minutes. > - When the Grok endpoint rejects every wake with HTTP 4xx, the bot never sees the work. The offer expires and the run fails with `Dot assignment acceptance or execution authority expired.` > - Paperclip already records each wake in `grok_bot_dispatches` with its HTTP status. The operator sees the rejection and can retry it. Thus Paperclip operates correctly in this case. > - But `reportRunFailure` sends this run to Sentry as an unexplained backend error. This makes noise and hides real defects. > - This pull request skips the Sentry report only when durable receipts prove that the Grok endpoint rejected every wake. > - The benefit is a cleaner Sentry signal. Local defects, uncertain delivery, and accepted work stay visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Sentry issue `PAPERCLIP-BACKEND-3M` (staging, 1 event). **What happened?** A Grok bot run on staging failed after 10 minutes in the `preparing` stage. Sentry got the error `Dot assignment acceptance or execution authority expired.` with the code `native_provider_terminal_failed`. The stored receipts show two `mailbox_updated` wakes for the assignment. The Grok endpoint rejected both wakes with HTTP 400: the first wake and one operator retry. The assignment was never accepted. Wakes with the same shape got HTTP 200 before and after this run. **Expected behavior** The run fails, and the operator sees the rejected delivery. Sentry does not get a backend error for a proven external rejection. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect a Grok bot agent and verify its routine. 2. Make the Grok endpoint return HTTP 400 for work wakes. 3. Assign a task to the agent and wait 10 minutes. 4. See that the run fails and that a Sentry event is sent. **Paperclip version or commit** `f69c6a8` (master). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/run-failure-report.ts`: Add `isRejectedExternalBotWake`. It returns true only when all of these conditions are true: - The run failed in native mode with `native_provider_terminal_failed`. - The finalization `failureDetail.originalFailureCode` is `dot_assignment_expired`. - The run has exactly one Dot assignment, and that assignment was never accepted. - The assignment has at least one `mailbox_updated` wake, and each wake has the status `rejected` with an HTTP 4xx status. - `captureTerminalRunFailure` skips the Sentry capture when the check is true. If the receipt check itself fails, it logs a warning and the failure stays reportable. The run status, the task, and the operator recovery do not change. - `packages/db`: Add the index `grok_dispatch_assignment_kind_idx` on `grok_bot_dispatches (assignment_id, kind)` (migration `0346`). The receipt lookup and the dispatcher's per-assignment checks use this index. - `server/src/services/__tests__/run-failure-report.test.ts`: Add one test for the skipped case. Add nine tests for cases that must stay reportable: no wake, a local rejection with no HTTP status, a delivered wake, uncertain delivery, accepted work, a different provider failure code, no finalization, more than one offer, and a receipt read that fails. ## Verification - `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/services/__tests__/run-failure-report.test.ts`: 208 tests pass. - I removed the new catch and ran the tests again. The receipt-read-failure test failed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` and `src/migration-snapshot-drift.test.ts` pass. - I removed the source change and ran the new tests again. The skipped-case test failed and the six reportable cases passed. This shows that the test proves the change. - I did not run the full `pnpm -r typecheck` locally. The server `typecheck` script needs `cargo` to build the Runner binary, and the sandbox stopped `tsc` with SIGKILL. CI runs the full typecheck. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only removes one Sentry report. It does not change run state, recovery, or what users see. - The check uses durable receipts, not message text. A wake with no HTTP status (local validation or credential failure) stays reportable, so a Paperclip defect cannot hide behind this rule. - For failed native runs with `native_provider_terminal_failed`, the check adds up to three indexed reads. Other runs do no extra reads. - Migration `0346` builds one index in a transaction. `grok_bot_dispatches` was created in `0344` and is small, so the build lock is short. The table is not on the migration gate's large-table list. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic. Agentic tool use with shell, code search, and test execution. ## 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>