mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
Devin FoleyandClaude Opus 5.5
4033f7f17f
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A user can click Retry on a blocked task. Paperclip then admits one new run that continues in the saved workspace > - That run can fail before the provider starts, for example when the download of the saved workspace snapshot gets a transient `ECONNRESET` > - The scheduler classifies this failure as transient and tries to schedule the normal bounded retry > - The automatic-retry admission accepts only continuations that a user comment started. It refuses a Retry continuation (`commentId: null`, `taskRetryRequestId` set) with `continuation_user_authorization_missing` > - So the task does not retry. Paperclip escalates the restore failure, and the task becomes blocked again after one network reset > - This pull request lets a plain task Retry renew its authority for the bounded transient retry, with its own receipt for each new run > - The benefit is that a transient setup failure after Retry uses the normal retry budget and does not block the task ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A run started by the task Retry button failed during setup: `remote_workspace_restore_failed: step=snapshot_download; storage=transport_closed code=ECONNRESET`. The run event said "The automatic retry could not revalidate the original user continuation." (retry reason `transient_failure`, attempt 1 of 2). No retry was scheduled, and the task became blocked. **Expected behavior** A transient setup failure of a Retry-admitted run gets the same bounded automatic retry as a run that a user comment started. **Root cause** `admitExplicitContinuationRetry` in `server/src/services/explicit-native-continuation.ts` required `explicitUserContinuation.commentId` to be a GUID. A Retry continuation has `commentId: null`. Also, dispatch in `server/src/services/execution-continuation.ts` bound a Retry receipt to exactly the run that it admitted, so a successor run could not prove its authority. Refs #19207 (it named remote restore failures and left a board recovery action) Refs #19340 (it retries quarantined tasks in their saved workspace) Refs #19326 (same bounded retry path for an out-of-date Runner) ## What Changed - `admitExplicitContinuationRetry` now accepts two kinds of authority. The comment path is unchanged and moved into `readCommentRetryAuthority`. The new `readTaskRetryRetryAuthority` accepts a plain task Retry only. The Retry request must be coalesced, from a user, with the same generation and actor, strategy `continue`, and no chat, queued-message, canonical-intent or fresh-workspace readiness. Interrupt and failed-run retries stay one-run. - The successor run gets its own `explicit_user_continuation_retry` receipt with the same `taskRetryRequestId` and actor and `automaticRetry.sourceRunId` set to the parent. The Retry request stays bound to the run that it admitted. - Dispatch (`buildExecutionContinuation`) accepts a Retry successor only from its own receipt, its exact `retryOfRunId` parent, the current `executionRunId` and the unchanged Retry intent. The direct path for the admitted run is unchanged. - Tests in `server/src/services/task-retry.test.ts`: one regression for the full retry chain, and eight refusal cases. ## Verification - Red: before the fix, the new test failed with `{ outcome: "not_scheduled", errorCode: "continuation_user_authorization_missing" }`. This is the same refusal as the incident. - Green: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/task-retry.test.ts` gives 58/58. - The regression test proves these points: the first retry is scheduled with `{ previousRunId: parent, commentId: null, taskRetryRequestId }`; the Retry request stays bound to the admitted run; dispatch accepts the successor; a repeated schedule call adopts the same successor without a second receipt; a second transient failure retries from its immediate parent; the budget then stops with `retry_exhausted`; dispatch refuses the successor when its own receipt is removed. - The refusal cases prove that no successor and no receipt are created after: wrong actor, unadmitted request, wrong generation, request bound to another run, chat Retry, fresh-workspace readiness, reassignment, superseding work. - Nearby suites pass (601/601): `execution-continuation`, `legacy-explicit-continuation-recovery`, `explicit-native-continuation`, `execution-continuation-provenance`, `quarantined-task-retry`, `issue-queued-comments-routes`, `task-retry`. - I did not run the layered server typecheck locally because of a disk limit in the sandbox. CI must confirm it. ## Risks - Behavior change: a plain task Retry run that fails transiently now retries automatically within the existing bounded budget (2 attempts). The scheduler still decides which failures are transient. The same rule already applies to runs that a user comment started. - Chat, queued-message and fresh-workspace Retries, failed-run retries and Interrupt keep their one-run contracts. - No schema or migration change. - Documentation gap: `doc/execution-semantics.md` (line 1210) says "One-run Retry and Interrupt intents retain their separate admission contracts; they are not renewable user-message authority." That sentence must change to describe this rule. The author's publication path cannot carry the full 320 KB file, so that one-sentence edit is still pending. The proposed text: "A plain task Retry that continues in the saved workspace renews the same way: the successor's receipt names the same Retry request and actor, while the Retry request itself stays bound to the run it admitted. Dispatch accepts that successor only from its own receipt, its exact retry parent, and the unchanged admitted Retry request, so a transient failure before or during that run, such as a reset saved-workspace download, uses the normal bounded retry budget instead of blocking the task. Chat, queued-message and fresh-workspace Retries, failed-run retries, and Interrupt intents retain their separate one-run admission contracts; they are not renewable authority." > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code as a Paperclip agent, with tool use and code execution (shell, Vitest on embedded PostgreSQL). ## 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 - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (the `doc/execution-semantics.md` sentence above is pending) - [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>