mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandClaude
c2423e30e8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The restart chaos harness (`tests/restart-chaos`) proves that runs recover when the control plane restarts > - PR #20494 fixed a saved governed wait whose provider terminal was late or lost across a restart. The harness proved it only with a K1 (kill -9) restart > - The harness could not restart with K2 (graceful SIGTERM) or K4 (outage hold) after a provider fault, so the graceful shutdown drain was not tested > - S1 needs the `interrupt_ack` message and Q1 needs `terminal`, but one wave could set only one message > - G1 was listed as a provider-fault workload, but its agent ends its own turn. No rule ever applies, and each G1 task waits until its deadline > - Speed breaches could not be explained after a wave, because the instance database is deleted > - This pull request adds K2/K4 provider-fault restarts, a message for each workload, removes G1, and keeps a speed split for each run > - The benefit is that one wave can test #20494 across graceful and held restarts. Also, a cold-start breach now shows whether Paperclip or the provider was slow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20494 **What happened?** The harness accepted only `--provider-fault-restart K1`. A wave with `--workloads G1` and a provider fault planned tasks that could not apply the fault. Waves w-20261110T050407-s206, w-20261110T063253-s208 and w-20261110T085554-s211 show `applied=0` for G1 with Codex and Claude. The board then waited for a restart that did not come. **What did you expect?** A provider fault can cross every restart kind that the harness supports. The harness rejects a workload that does not interrupt a provider turn. **Steps to reproduce** Run `--adapters codex --workloads G1 --faults PV1 --provider-fault-restart K1 --concurrency 1`. The Codex shim logs `bound` and then `exited` with code 0. It logs no `interrupt_requested`. The task fails `R1:no_rest_within_budget`. ## What Changed - `--provider-fault-restart` accepts K1, K2 and K4. A comma list (for example `K4,K4,K2,K2`) cycles across PV1/PV2 tasks in plan order. K4 holds the control plane down for 120 s. - `--provider-fault-message` accepts `WORKLOAD=message` entries next to the default, for example `S1=interrupt_ack,terminal`. - G1 is removed from `PROVIDER_FAULT_WORKLOADS`. The config check that told G1 to add a restart is removed, because G1 is now rejected. - `speed.json` keeps a `runs` list. Each entry has `bootMs` (Paperclip share), `queueMs`, `providerFirstActivityMs` (turn accepted to first activity) and the pre-turn spans. - README documents the new flags, the G1 limit, and the speed split. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts`: 35 files, 434 tests pass. - `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs tests/restart-chaos` passes. - Live wave w-20261110T092735-s213 (Codex, seed 213, concurrency 1). All 4 tasks pass R1–R6, T and `provider_fault_applied`: - t01 S1 PV2 drop `interrupt_ack` + K4 (120 s hold) - t02 Q1 PV1 delay `terminal` 18 s + K4 (120 s hold) - t03 S1 PV1 delay `interrupt_ack` 18 s + K2 - t04 Q1 PV2 drop `terminal` + K2 - That wave wrote the new `runs` split in `speed.json`. Cold boot was 1.3–1.7 s and provider first activity was 2.0–2.6 s. ## Risks - Low risk. Only the test harness changes. Product code does not change. - Old `plan.json` files keep `providerFaultRestart: "K1"`. That value is still valid, so replays of old waves do not change. - A wave that used G1 with provider faults now fails at parse time. Before, it ran and failed at the deadline. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5-5`, 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>