mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
bd30ef8510
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can work on tasks that start from an external chat, such as Slack. When the agent waits for the next chat message, the task shows "in review" with an external response wait. > - Issue lists and inbox attention show these waits. To show a wait, the server checks that the chat conversation is still authorized: the messages, the destination, the endpoint, and each person who wrote. > - The server did this check one time for each waiting task, and it started all the checks at the same time. A page with 19 waits sent 19 copies of the message-link statement at the same moment, each on its own pool connection, and then 19 copies of each policy read. > - On a hosted database, 19 identical copies of this statement were active at the same moment, about 670 ms each. They were 19 of the 20 active queries. > - This pull request reads the messages of all waits of a page with one statement and shares the policy reads between the waits. Each wait gets the same authorization result as before. > - The benefit is fewer statements and fewer connections for each issue page, so one page cannot fill the pool with copies of one read. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20400 (shares wait reads between the callers of one request; this change removes the per-wait fan-out inside that shared read). Refs #18966 (reuses the prepared message-link statement; this change keeps that statement for single runs). **What happened** `listExternalReviewWaits` ran `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` one time for each waiting task, inside `Promise.all`. Each call sends the message-link statement, then a resource read, and three reads for each person. A page with N waits sent N copies of each statement at the same time, on up to N pool connections. **Expected behavior** One issue page sends one message-link statement for all of its waits. A resource or a person that is common to many waits is read one time. The authorization result of each wait does not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put many tasks of one company in review with an external chat response wait. 2. Open the issue list or the inbox. 3. Look at the active statements of the database. One copy of the message-link statement runs for each wait. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/chat-attachment-reuse.ts`: - Split `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` into steps: read the bound provider and wake comments, read the message rows, and apply the policy to the rows (`authorizeBoundRunLinks`). The single-run path uses the same prepared statement, the same lock modes and the same policy code as before. - Move the message-link join and its policy filters to one query builder, `boundRunLinksQuery`. The single-run statement and the batch statement both use it. - Add `authorizeChatConversationsForBoundRuns(db, companyId, runs)`. It is read-only and takes no locks. It reads the messages of all runs with one statement, then gives each run only the rows that the single-run statement returns for that run (same issue, agent, provider and comments). The runs share each distinct resource and principal read. Each run gets its conversation, or `null` for a policy denial. Other errors are thrown, as before. - Add `isBoundChatAuthorizationDenial` for the three policy denial errors. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/external-review-wait.ts`: `listExternalReviewWaits` uses the batch authorization. The inherited GitHub review-wait reads do not change. - `server/src/__tests__/batched-chat-authorization.integration.test.ts`: new tests on real PostgreSQL. For each case, the batch result must equal the result of separate single-run reads. The cases include each denial: a missing or foreign comment, no comments, no execution marker, a wrong provider, agent or issue, a person without a link or without a membership, a viewer member, a revoked link, a disabled or unavailable destination, a paused endpoint, a closed conversation, an unprocessed delivery, a delivery without a person, and a verifying endpoint. A test also makes sure that one person's decision never applies to another person in the same batch, and that a batch sends one message-link statement. - `scripts/benchmark-chat-bound-authorization.ts`: a local benchmark that loads the pre-fix modules from a baseline commit, checks that both versions return the same waits, and measures them. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/batched-chat-authorization.integration.test.ts src/__tests__/prepared-chat-authorization.integration.test.ts` passes (10 tests). - Mutation check: when I removed the issue filter from the per-run row selection, or shared one principal decision for all people of an endpoint, the new tests failed (1 and 3 failures). - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-reviewed-chat-binding`, `external-chat-wait`, `preserved-native-response-wait`, `chat-attachment-reuse` and `external-review-wait` (392 tests). - `pnpm verify` asks for broader verification because the change adds a file under `scripts/`. Required CI supplies that coverage. - Benchmark: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-chat-bound-authorization.ts --baseline-ref=f4337bb5fb` (the measured pre-fix commit) Benchmark fixture (synthetic, local PostgreSQL 18.1, pool of 10): one company, one Slack endpoint, 20 tasks waiting for a chat response from 5 people, 4 of those waits denied (the person is a suspended member), and 2,000 earlier conversations with 50,000 processed deliveries (6 KiB events, 419 MB). Both versions return the same 16 waits. 15 alternating pairs after warm-up: | One issue page (20 waits) | Before | After | | --- | --- | --- | | Statements sent | 101 | 18 | | Message-link statements | 20 | 1 | | Server time of the message-link statements | 0.50 ms (sum of 20) | 0.13 ms | | Page time, median (min to max) | 8.86 ms (6.94 to 12.05) | 4.05 ms (3.62 to 5.54) | | 8 pages at the same time, median (min to max) | 54.18 ms (48.36 to 89.24) | 14.99 ms (12.60 to 19.59) | ## Risks - The batch must give each wait the same result as a separate read. The batch statement uses the same join and policy filters. It then selects each run's rows with the equality filters of the single-run statement. The policy code is the same function for both paths. The tests compare both paths for each denial case. - Shared reads: the batch reads each resource and each person one time. All reads are plain reads with no locks, as before. A policy change that occurs during one page read can now apply to all waits of the page at the same time, instead of to some of them. - An invalid wake comment id in one wait makes the whole page read fail. This was already true: the failure of one wait rejected the whole `Promise.all`. - The single-run path (attachment reuse, status decisions, run preparation and others) keeps its prepared statement and lock modes. The order of the conditions in its WHERE clause changed; the conditions are the same. - Not proven: why each copy took about 670 ms on the hosted database. Locally one copy takes about 0.03 ms with the expected index plan. The likely causes are the burst of copies on a small compute and cold pages. Verify after deployment that the statement runs at most one time for each issue page request. - No migration and no schema change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, 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 - [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>