mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 12:33:05 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
b891e69bd2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native agents report completion through a server-owned tool boundary. > - A truncated external-chat request requires a complete run-bound comment read. > - The terminal guard checks that receipt after the provider ends its turn. > - Early completion feedback omitted the same check and could accept an unread report. > - The provider then lost its chance to correct the report in the same turn. > - This pull request returns the existing read requirement through the completion tool before accepting the report. > - The final guard still protects the exact source and snapshot after provider settlement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16995 keeps run-scoped readers available to retained provider threads. #18913 preserves queued comment input. This change fixes a separate completion-feedback boundary. **What happened?** A native external-chat run could submit an accepted completion without reading all server-bound comments. The terminal guard then failed the run with `native_current_wake_comments_unread`. Early feedback also accepted partial, changed and foreign read receipts. The agent did not receive the required correction while it could still act in the same turn. **Expected behavior** The completion tool must reject the report with a `read_current_wake_comments` instruction and the cursor requirements. A complete current read must permit the corrected report in the same turn. The final snapshot check must remain effective. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a running native task with a truncated external-chat wake and exact accepted comment IDs. 2. Call completion feedback before reading the comments, or after only a partial or stale read. 3. Observe that the old code returns an accepted report instead of the read correction. ## What Changed - Check the existing run, company, task and agent binding before every completion-feedback acceptance return. - Reuse the authoritative current-wake reader and terminal receipt validator. - Share the two unchanged read-error codes from their owner across the validator, feedback and executor classification. - Convert only the two owned unread or changed-snapshot errors into a bounded tool correction. Other errors still propagate. - Keep the final validator, receipt parser, result persistence and admission policy unchanged. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions and an actual OpenCode MCP tool sequence with a controlled local provider process. - Document the early correction and final snapshot fence. ## Verification The source checkout uses Node 24.22.2 on macOS arm64 with a fresh owned embedded PostgreSQL database. Final published tip: `37bfb269432f86f98cab1a58c09b5519ed9477fd`. Its production code is commit `8c7297318c3a841fc1c72c846acfaabf58adabe9`; the last commit adapts three existing module mocks. The expanded affected group passes **1,284 cases** with **35 existing opt-in skips**. The skips require captured private-runner transition fixtures and a configured fresh database, which were not supplied. All nine real PostgreSQL/MCP cases execute and pass. Recursive typecheck and the full build pass for production commit `8c7297318c`; the final changed test layer also passes. - Untouched master `1a39dea9aa2bb9bea416439b0a574c788e88b9a0`: four causal failures. Unread, partial, changed and foreign complete receipts incorrectly receive accepted completion feedback. The ordinary inline-complete control passes. - Current source: all nine new cases pass. The actual authorized reader returns the full accepted comment. The same running task and run remain intact, with no replacement or accepted-result replay. - The OpenCode native backend sends a real MCP finish rejection to the controlled provider process. The process follows the returned reader instruction, reads every page, and resubmits finish. One provider turn produces one semantic result proposal. The terminal snapshot fence still rejects a later comment edit. - All 98 affected OpenCode driver and MCP bridge cases pass with the fixture-mode addition. - The first tool-sequence attempt failed on a fixture-only relative path before starting the provider. The test now uses its module URL. This setup failure is separate from the four causal failures. - The first recursive typecheck found missing local workspace links in the clone's excluded sandbox-provider directories. Existing dependency links were copied into the isolated clone. No lockfile or source change was made for this setup repair. - At `c57e532a87`, all 1255 cases in the six-file affected server family, recursive Node 24 typecheck and the full build pass. At production commit `1ae9f54107e1762bc8222572b365a013d4572d1a`, all 1,257 affected cases, recursive Node 24 typecheck and the full build pass. - Greptile found that the initial correction could restart a partial read after page two. On `c57e532a87`, following that correction fails with the actual reader cursor-order error. The follow-up continues the caller's most recent cursor and retains the changed-snapshot restart path. All nine new cases pass, including this regression, a stale-partial control, the foreign receipt refusal and the actual same-turn MCP sequence. - [Linux server3/12 job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41788671370/job/126437378334) found five failures in the older format-feedback SQL fixture. Its flat heartbeat row did not match the real joined projection. The same five failures reproduced locally. The test-only follow-up returns a coherent run/agent/task projection and keeps the real resolver and formatter assertions. All 14 format and real-PG/MCP cases pass, and the generated server test layer typechecks. Production code and the earlier 1,257-case/typecheck/build proof are unchanged. - Qualification of the shared-code change found 49 failures because whole-module mocks omitted the new exports. The three mocks now pass through actual module exports and keep their controlled reader methods. Literal error assertions remain independent. The final 1,284-case group passes with the exact 35 opt-in skips described above. No production fallback or substitute code was added. - [One Linux Runner package attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41792315273/job/126448500037) passed 4,913 cases and skipped 10, but its synthetic post-rename credential durability case failed with ENOENT. The complete Runner package tree and lockfile are identical to the [earlier Linux control](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41790199252/job/126441739681), where all 42 credential cases passed on Node 24.22.2. The exact case also passes once on both base and head on macOS with Node 24.22.2. The original failure cause remains unverified; OS/load and shared-test timing uncertainty remain. Credential code and assertions are unchanged. The single affected-job rerun passes, including all 42 credential tests. The original failure remains unexplained. - An ordinary full local test attempt was stopped before the review repair. It has no completion summary and is INCOMPLETE. Current-head full CI completed; no local full-suite pass is claimed. Greptile reviewed the final published tip at 5/5 with zero open threads. All current-tip checks pass: 54 successful check runs, one successful legacy commit status, 3 skipped and 2 neutral, with no pending or failing checks. Paperclip also reviewed final tip `37bfb26943` at 5/5 with no remaining findings. Its prior 4/5 code-ownership recommendation is fixed and resolved. No review nudge or hosted task retry was issued. The controlled OpenCode process uses the supported v1 factory envelope to exercise the common native feedback and MCP boundary. It does not call a live model or qualify a provider pack. PostgreSQL, authorization, pagination and receipt checks are real. No hosted task, model, permission or saved result was changed. Recovery of an already accepted historical run remains unverified. ## Risks - Each finish call adds an exact binding query. A mandatory read also validates the current accepted-comment snapshot through the existing transaction. Cost grows with those exact comment IDs, bodies and attachment metadata; it does not scan unrelated task history or add idle polling. - A valid read can become stale before the provider settles. The unchanged terminal guard still rejects that race. - Missing ownership or unexpected validation errors remain refusals. This change does not grant replay authority or turn an accepted historical result into fresh work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository inspection, code execution and GitHub tools. The runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window. The coordinator performed independent read-only source review. ## 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 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>