mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
d2e3f7dce5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Users triage agent work through the issue inbox, which suppresses archived issues by comparing issue `updated_at` against the archive timestamp > - Migration `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` backfilled responsible-user columns but also set `updated_at = now()` on every row it touched (companies, issues, routines, routine_runs, heartbeat_runs) > - That blanket timestamp bump made every archived issue look newly updated, resurfacing thousands of archived issues into every user's inbox > - This pull request corrects the 0130 backfill in place so it only fills `NULL` responsible-user columns and never touches timestamps, and adds tests that prevent this class of bug from being reintroduced > - The benefit is that inbox archive suppression stays intact across migrations, and no future migration backfill can silently bump `updated_at` on user-visible tables ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Bug description (no public issue exists):** - **What happened:** after upgrading a dev instance across migration 0130, every previously archived inbox item resurfaced as unread/new for all users. - **Expected:** data backfills must not alter row modification timestamps; archived issues stay archived unless genuinely updated. - **Root cause:** the 0130 backfill's `UPDATE` statements set `updated_at = now()` alongside the responsible-user columns. ## What Changed - `packages/db/src/migrations/0130_run_responsible_user_invariant.sql`: removed all `updated_at = now()` assignments from the backfill UPDATEs; the migration now only fills `NULL` responsible-user columns. The file is corrected **in place** (no new migration number, journal untouched) because 0130 has never shipped in a published release. - `packages/db/src/client.test.ts`: added a guard test that scans every migration and rejects backfills that bump `updated_at` on user-visible tables (with an explicit allowlist for the pre-existing 0131 repair migration). - `packages/db/src/client.test.ts`: added a replay test that simulates an already-migrated database picking up the corrected file (deletes the 0130 ledger hash, re-applies mid-journal) and asserts issue `updated_at` and inbox-archive suppression ordering are untouched. ### Why an in-place edit is safe - 0130 only exists on master/canary builds; the latest published release (v2026.626.0) predates it. - The migration ledger is content-hash based: databases that already applied the old 0130 keep an orphaned hash row (harmless) and see the corrected file as pending, so they replay the corrected backfill — which is idempotent (fills `NULL`s only, no timestamp writes). - Fresh databases simply run the corrected 0130 in journal order. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` — clean - `cd packages/db && npx vitest run src/client.test.ts` — 11/11 passing against embedded Postgres, including the new guard and mid-journal replay tests ## Risks - Migration safety: the corrected backfill is idempotent and only writes `NULL` columns; replay on already-migrated databases is exercised directly by the new test. No schema changes. - Databases that already ran the old 0130 keep the bumped timestamps from that run; repairing historical damage is intentionally out of scope here (no released build ever contained the bug). ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, tool use) via Claude Code / Paperclip agent runtime ## 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 (backup health alert work split into #9113; no other related open PRs) - [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 (none needed for a migration content fix) - [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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>