mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
d26372dc8a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The restart chaos harness kills the control plane at chosen moments and grades whether each task still finishes correctly > - One wave lost a user's follow-up comment after a kill that landed after the run accepted its result but before the run settled > - No existing trigger aims a fault at that moment, so the case was hard to reproduce on purpose > - The recovery path that settles such a run had no regression test that covers the saved comment > - This pull request adds a `result` trigger to the harness and a regression test for the recovery path > - The benefit is that the harness can aim faults at the result-accepted window, and a change that drops, repeats, or re-wakes a saved comment fails a test ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** In a restart-chaos storm wave, a user posted a comment while a native run was active. A hard kill (K1) landed after the run accepted its result and before the run settled. The run settled `succeeded` and the task stayed `done`, but no follow-up run read the comment. **Steps to reproduce** The original failure did not reproduce. Three targeted waves ran 12 tasks with K1 at comment time or in the new result window. Every follow-up comment was consumed exactly once. The new regression test also passes on current `master`. The test and the trigger guard the path and do not claim a fix. **Expected behavior** A comment posted during a run is consumed exactly once after the run ends, including when restart recovery settles the run. ## What Changed - `tests/restart-chaos`: add `--triggers result` (C1 only). K1 fires 0–3 s after the run that received the follow-up proposes or accepts its result (`run.result.proposed` or `run.result.accepted`). The fault fires only while that run is still `running`: the observer checks the latest sample and rereads the runs right before dispatch. A run that settled during the delay, or a follow-up posted at rest, records a `result` miss. Add poll-driven unit tests for these cases and a README row. - `server/src/__tests__/native-run-projection-work.test.ts`: add embedded Postgres tests in which background recovery, not the executor, settles the run (projection, environment settlement, and deferred-receipt workers), with a deferred user comment and an active local lease left by the killed executor. The tests check: - The comment is promoted into exactly one follow-up run, and a second restart adds none. - A comment the run already received as a same-turn steer is not woken again. The other saved comment still is. - A queue whose only comment was steered stays cancelled, and no follow-up starts. - A Retry click does not consume the comment a second time. A click that observed the source is stale. A click that observed the follow-up joins it. ## Verification - `cd tests/restart-chaos && npx vitest run --config vitest.config.ts` (96 tests pass) - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/native-run-projection-work.test.ts` (54 tests pass) - Live, local, ACPX Claude, Codex and OpenCode: `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs tests/restart-chaos/main.ts --env local --workloads C1 --triggers comment --faults K1 --adapters codex,claude,opencode --tasks 4 --concurrency 2 --rc06-masked` passed 4 of 4. Two waves with `--triggers result` consumed each follow-up exactly once. One task in those waves found a separate defect: a kill 1.4 s after the result commit left the run `running` behind the dead controller's 20-minute finalization lease. A separate pull request fixes that defect. ## Risks - Low risk. These are test and harness changes only. No production code changes. - The `result` trigger depends on the observer's poll interval (about 3 s), so the exact kill point within the window varies. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, run as an agent in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file editing, local test execution). ## 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>