mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
c02fd8d427
## Thinking Path - Paperclip keeps some remote sandboxes after their run: warm ones for reuse, and failed runs' stopped sandboxes as workspace-restore sources. - In the warm Daytona chaos waves for #20048, the real leaks were restore sources that nothing retires once a user Retry closes their recovery actions. Separately, a done task's suspended warm sandbox is only destroyed when its environment is deleted. - Retiring them early needs a provider-I/O salvage step: compare against the durable save, export anything unsaved to the issue, then destroy. That spans recovery, storage, attachments and teardown. The coordinator asked for a design note so it can be its own reviewed task instead of a rushed patch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20048, #20085, #20086 **What happened?** Closed restore sources and done-task warm sandboxes stay suspended until their environment is deleted, costing storage. No path compares them with the last durable save or exports their unsaved files before retirement. **Steps to reproduce** 1. A run fails; its sandbox is kept as a `retain_on_failure` restore source. 2. The user clicks Retry; a fresh run succeeds and the task is done. 3. The restore-source sandbox is never retired until the environment is deleted. **Expected behavior** After a clean compare, or a confirmed export of anything unsaved to the issue, the sandbox is destroyed. If salvage fails, it stays suspended and is retried. ## What Changed - `doc/plans/2026-11-08-restore-source-salvage-and-warm-retirement.md`: a design for one owned kind (`environment_kept_sandbox_retirement`) on the shared reconciler. It covers listing rules for both cases (24 h default retention for done-task warm sandboxes), a three-stage salvage state machine (compare, export, retire) with a provider-I/O step and receipt table, failure handling that never destroys without proof, and the test plan. ## Verification Docs only; no code or tests changed. ## Risks None at runtime. Additive documentation. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool use and code execution, via 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>