mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 20:05:57 +02:00
Devin Foley
8f099c3f83
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Every master merge publishes an npm canary, and downstream managed deployments consume the matching `sha-<short>-cloud` Docker image. > - The canary image relies on the master-push `docker.yml` run, whose single pending concurrency slot is superseded by every newer push. > - On a busy day the image build never survives: five consecutive canaries shipped npm packages with no cloud image on 2026-09-06, and downstream deploys starved for ~18 hours while master kept moving. > - The nightly and beta lanes already solve exactly this by dispatching `docker.yml` at their tag ref after pushing it. > - This pull request wires the canary lane into the same mechanism, so every canary tag gets an image build no master push can supersede. > - The benefit is that a published canary always has its images, and downstream release resolution stops walking back to day-old builds during busy merge windows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12769 / #12855 (the earlier image-publishing incident in the same pipeline, different failure mode). **What happened?** `docker.yml` serialises per ref with one pending slot (`concurrency: docker-${{ github.ref }}`, `cancel-in-progress: false`). Master pushes arriving faster than the ~50-minute build supersede the pending build indefinitely. On 2026-09-06, canaries `2026.906.0-canary.1` through `.3` (and the commits between) published to npm with no `sha-<short>-cloud` image on GHCR — the Docker run list shows `cancelled, cancelled, cancelled` for their commits. Downstream managed rollouts correctly refused to deploy image-less canaries and pinned at `canary.0` for ~18 hours. **Expected behavior** Every published canary has its Docker images. A busy merge window must not be able to prevent image publication for tagged releases. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Merge to master more often than the Docker build takes to complete, for several hours. 2. Observe npm canaries advancing while every `Docker` run for their commits completes `cancelled`. 3. Observe `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:sha-<short>-cloud` returning 404 for each of those canaries. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at `83987210` (diagnosis time); the starved canaries were `2026.906.0-canary.1`–`.3`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions release + image pipeline; consumed by managed cloud deployments. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `publish_canary` job: - New step after "Push canary tag": dispatch `docker.yml` at `refs/tags/canary/v<version>` — identical to the nightly and beta lanes' existing step, including the step-summary note. The dispatched run keys its concurrency off the tag ref, so master pushes cannot supersede it, and `docker.yml`'s `type=sha` mapping publishes `sha-<short>` / `sha-<short>-cloud` for any ref. - The job gains `actions: write`, mirroring `publish_nightly`. - No `docker.yml` changes: it already accepts `workflow_dispatch` for exactly this pattern. - No dry-run guard needed: `publish_canary` runs only on `push` events, so the `dry_run` dispatch input cannot reach it. ## Verification - YAML lints clean; the step is a line-for-line mirror of the proven nightly-lane step (tag source swapped for the job's existing `canary_tag` output). - The concurrency claim is docker.yml's own documented behavior: groups are per-ref, and a tag ref is distinct from `refs/heads/master`. - Not run: a live canary publish — the next master merge after this lands exercises it end to end; the worst case (double build for a canary whose master-push run also survives) is benign, since both runs push identical content-addressed tags. ## Risks - Low. Roughly one additional Docker build per canary on busy days (on quiet days the master-push run and the dispatched run both execute — duplicate work, identical images, no conflict since the sha tags are content-equivalent for the same commit). - `actions: write` on `publish_canary` matches the grant `publish_nightly` already carries for the same purpose. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code: GHCR manifest probing, Actions run-list forensics, and workflow-lane comparison. ## 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 (workflow-only change; YAML linted; no test harness targets release.yml) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable — CI wiring mirroring an existing proven lane) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (the step's inline comment documents the invariant) - [x] I have considered and documented the 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