mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
d84061b923
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native runs preserve provider sessions across controller restarts. > - A completion event can reach durable storage before the next session checkpoint. > - Recovery advanced the event cursor but lost the saved completion proposal. > - The completed turn then appeared to need another provider turn to report its result. > - This change restores the exact active turn's proposal before advancing the cursor. > - Recovery can finalize completed work without repeating its external actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a controller restart, a native run could fail with `native_finalization_missing` even though `run.result.proposed` was already durable. The recovered driver skipped that event when its cursor advanced, so the result was absent from its state. Automatic disposition retries could then encounter outstanding tool receipts and exhaust recovery. **Expected behavior** Restore the saved result for the exact active turn. Wait for provider termination, then use normal finalization. Do not start another provider turn to repeat completed work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native Codex task and save its active-turn checkpoint. 2. Persist its completion proposal, then lose the controller before another checkpoint. 3. Recover the same run after the provider completes. Before this change, finalization reports a missing result. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `92b238137b`. The repair is based on `7c247243e5`. **Deployment mode** Native Runner with Codex. The incident used a remote sandbox; the regression covers controller event recovery. Related: #12845 and #15297. The older #12241 addresses provider process continuity; this change repairs the controller's saved event projection. ## What Changed - Restore valid completion proposals for the checkpoint's exact active turn during event replay. - Reject conflicting, invalid, or incorrectly bound proposals. Ignore proposals from another turn and prevent adoption after a newer turn starts. - Keep provider termination and normal finalization as separate requirements. - Add eight behavioral cases using the real Codex driver and a simulated transport, and document the recovery contract and verification scope. ## Verification - Red: the new restart regression failed with `native_finalization_missing` before the production change. - Green: 254 tests passed across the native runtime, backend adapter, and Codex recovery suites. The new cases check no repeated provider work, no early finalization, duplicate proposals, conflicts, invalid proposals, and stale turn/session bindings. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. All CI gates passed on `2ac025a15c`; Greptile rated that commit 5/5 with no outstanding findings. The full local `pnpm test:run` was started after completing the embedded PostgreSQL installation, then stopped while still running once the complete CI test matrix passed; it is not reported as a completed local run. - Real local acceptance passed on `2ac025a15c` with the production Rust Runner transport, Codex CLI `0.160.0`, and `gpt-6.1-sol` on macOS arm64. Persisted the completion proposal while retaining the older active-turn checkpoint; let the provider finish without persisting its later controller events; stopped the exact owned runner/provider; recovered the same provider session and turn. Observed one accepted result, one durable `turn.start` command, and one line in the receipt file. Hosted sandbox restart and recovery of the original stopped task have not been performed. - Initial setup failures are retained: dependency drift caused diff-viewer type errors, and skipped PostgreSQL postinstall links prevented database startup. Dependency alignment and the package postinstall repaired those local prerequisites. Probe setup iterations failed on a direct-provider response schema, invalid probe input fields, and an original provider that still held its writer lock. Acceptance uses the production transport, validated input, and exact-owner shutdown. No production code changes were made for those probe setup failures. ## Risks - A stale proposal could finalize the wrong work. Recovery requires the checkpoint's active turn and matching run, session, and source. It rejects conflicting results and waits for provider termination. - The change uses the existing paginated recovery scan. It adds no database query per event or new retry allowance. - No schema migration or change to task authorization is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served model snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The live acceptance probe uses `gpt-6.1-sol`. ## 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 - [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>