mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
da34bcd48d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Durable workspaces let a replacement web server restore saved task files. > - Legacy workspace imports keep a journal and an encrypted upload receipt across interruption. > - An archived Git import can rebuild a missing source from its saved task commit and edits. > - A fresh clone can also contain newer remote refs. Those refs change the archive manifest even when the task files are unchanged. > - This pull request recovers the exact authenticated upload for an interrupted archived Git import. > - The original journal, source binding, task binding, and execution checks still control publication. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An archived Git workspace import stopped after its upload persisted. A retry rebuilt the source from the remote repository. New remote refs changed the archive manifest, so the original upload receipt rejected the retry with `remote_workspace_snapshot_operation_content_changed`. **Expected behavior** The retry must recover its original saved upload and complete the same import. It must keep the saved task commit, staged edits, unstaged edits, lifecycle state, and task binding. A changed source or task binding must still block publication. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Archive a Git task with staged and unstaged edits, save its restoration recipe, and remove its local repository. 2. Start the workspace import and lose the upload reply after object persistence, or interrupt its independent restore after the upload is acknowledged. 3. Advance the remote default branch and add an unrelated branch. 4. Retry the original import. Before this change, both interruption cases fail with the same content-change error. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `d8b0eae68772a3bd2bb4a8163b5ce95764b97cff`. **Deployment mode** Cloud workspace migration with external PostgreSQL and durable encrypted object storage. The regression tests use real disposable PostgreSQL, an HTTP Git remote, and encrypted filesystem-backed object storage. Related merged work: #18826 and #19138. No duplicate open fix was found. ## What Changed - Add scoped recovery of an acknowledged snapshot or a pending upload whose object persisted. Authenticate the archive before returning it. Recovery alone does not publish the snapshot. - Resume archived Git imports from those exact saved bytes. Keep the original operation and all publication checks. - Lock and recheck each saved nested source’s company, project, and repository identity in the final publication transaction. - Keep mutable local sources on the existing capture and content-comparison path. - Add regressions for both interruption points, unrelated remote changes, source revocation during recovery, and local edits after interruption. - Document the retry behavior. ## Verification - Before the repair: both new archived retry regressions fail with `remote_workspace_snapshot_operation_content_changed`; the mutable-source control passes. - After the repair: all 204 tests in the migration, snapshot storage, archive, and archive environment suites pass. The suites use real PostgreSQL and encrypted storage. - Server package typecheck and full repository typecheck pass on `bffebbab60edbdf50b42fc37a9e58beb01ceb94d`. - An added source-revocation test initially expected a later expiry error. The existing publication fingerprint rejected the change first. The test now requires that earlier `remote_workspace_migration_publication_changed` error and still checks that authority was not published. - The review finding was reproduced before the safety repair: changing a saved nested repository URL after upload still allowed publication. The new regression requires rejection, and unchanged approved nested sources still restore. - Full repository typecheck and build pass on the final head. The full local test command stopped at one Slack manager authorization fixture with `socket hang up`; the exact case then passed in isolation on the same head, and all three CI chat shards passed. The original local failure is retained. - The first CI server shard run had 4,724 passes and one runtime-process readiness failure in an unchanged fixture. The exact fixture passed in isolation. One unchanged rerun of that shard passed. The first failure remains recorded in the workflow history. - The earlier candidate’s full local test run was stopped after the confirmed review finding; that interrupted run is not reported as a pass. - All CI gates, including `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, pass on `bffebbab60edbdf50b42fc37a9e58beb01ceb94d`. Greptile is 5/5 on that head, with no remaining findings or unresolved review threads. ## Risks Recovery applies to archived Git sources, whose saved recipe and lifecycle checks still run before publication. A source change during recovery must keep the snapshot unpublished. Missing or corrupt saved objects still fail authentication or retain the existing import obligation. Mutable local sources still reject changed contents. This change adds no database migration and changes no saved archive format. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with code editing, tool use, and test execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>