mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
bf818280f2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls agent work and preserves its workspaces. > - The online importer moves up to eight shared-source leaves under one source fence. > - Each member must have a durable reservation before capture starts. > - Serial reservations repeat the same validation cost before any archive work. > - This pull request reserves members in parallel through their existing independent transactions. > - Every reservation finishes before an error can release the fence or start capture. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #19873, #20387, #20394. **Current behavior** A measured six-member cohort spent about 110 seconds in serial reservations. Each reservation keeps its existing source, task, recovery and journal checks. **Proposed behavior** Start the bounded member reservations together. Join all outcomes, retain member order, and refuse capture if any member fails. Keep the exact partial-journal resume contract. **Reason and benefit** This removes serial metadata work before capture. Hosted speedup has not been measured for this change. ## What Changed - Replace only the cohort reservation caller loop with `Promise.allSettled`. - Preserve the existing per-member transaction, preassigned operation ID, source fingerprint and all source fences. - Extend the real PostgreSQL failure fixture to require overlapping reservations and complete peer closure before fence release. - Document the unchanged partial-journal and atomic publication contract. ## Verification - Canonical cached worktree preflight and plugin SDK prerequisites passed on Node 24.22.2. - The unchanged production baseline failed the new reservation overlap assertion: one reader entered instead of two. The canonical PostgreSQL wrapper cleaned up. The other 21 tests were intentionally not selected. - The first baseline command failed before PostgreSQL because root-level `tsx` resolution was absent. The corrected command uses the checkout's explicit `cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs`. - The four focused PostgreSQL controls passed before the final rebase: overlap/join failure, exact partial-journal resume, parallel capture with both cold restores, and atomic outer-commit rollback. Eighteen tests were intentionally not selected. Server TypeScript passed. - The final branch is based on merged #20394 at `302ada90dfda0e8fbcd8a514d506d310c9843bcb`. The two directly affected PostgreSQL reservation/resume controls passed again on final head `06d436e45705da3b616a2b91725960f6e0ea52c0` (2 passed, 20 intentionally not selected; 100.56 seconds). Server TypeScript passed again. The canonical wrapper completed cleanup. - The separate Ponytail review remains 4/5. Its nonblocking fan-out warning was resolved as the documented phase contract; no source change was required. Optional multi-error aggregation is outside this change. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `06d436e45705da3b616a2b91725960f6e0ea52c0`, with no actionable findings or unresolved threads: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20401#issuecomment-6754025480. - Exact-head CI is complete: 56 success, 4 skipped and 1 neutral, with no failed or pending checks. Aggregate `ci / verify` passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42718439355. - Reproduce the final focused cases on Node 24: `node --import ./cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs packages/db/src/test-postgres-command.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/remote-workspace-cohort-migration.test.ts -t "joins concurrent reservation validation readers|resumes the exact membership after reservation stops halfway"`. Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` for TypeScript. ## Risks - API phase contract: `concurrency` limits capture workers. Preflight, reservation and post-finalizer validation fan out over the exact selected member set, with the canonical maximum of eight. The original DB pool bounds connections. `concurrency: 1` does not promise one metadata query or transaction at a time. - Up to eight reservations can use independent pool connections at once. Members that pass can leave durable journals when a peer fails. The existing exact-member resume path retains those journals; this change does not retry automatically. - Capture and publication remain blocked until every reservation settles. Publication stays serial in one transaction. Saved journal schemas, singleton behavior and recovery proof checks do not change. - This does not change concurrency inside the publication transaction. One PostgreSQL connection serializes that SQL, and changing its row-lock order has no measured benefit here. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier 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>