mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
dc1adb7209
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a native run cannot reattach to its provider after a control-plane restart, the native coordinator resumes the same run by itself after about 30 seconds, up to three attempts > - The run projection shows this correctly as "Retry scheduled" with only `inspect_run` permitted > - The task interruption shown on the issue read only system-recovery evidence and `scheduledRetryAt`. It never read the coordinator's `nextAttemptAt`, so it showed `state: failed, canRetry: true` and offered a manual Retry while the automatic resume was still pending > - The two surfaces disagree, and a user click can race the automatic resume. That is one way a Retry gets parked behind "execution checks" > - #19503 made the task interruption read the coordinator's pending resume time. Review found that the coordinator also pushes that time forward while it defers an ineligible candidate, so a reassigned or blocked task could hide Retry for good > - This pull request advertises the resume only while the scheduler's synchronous admission checks pass > - The benefit is one consistent story: while the automatic resume is pending, the task shows it with its time and no competing Retry. If recovery ends, exactly one Retry returns ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #19503. Refs #19487, #19497. **What happened?** A native run failed with `native_session_interrupted` after a restart. Its finalization row had `phase: retryable_failure` and `nextAttemptAt` 30 seconds later. The run projection said "Retry scheduled". The issue interruption said `state: failed, canRetry: true, nextRetryAt: null`. **What did you expect?** While the automatic resume is pending, the task shows that it is resuming, with the time, and no Retry. When the resume fails for good or never runs, exactly one Retry that works on the first click. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native task and restart the control plane so the native attach fails. 2. Read `GET /api/issues/:id` while the coordinator's resume is pending. 3. Observe `interruption.canRetry: true` while `execution.phase` is `retry_scheduled`. ## What Changed - `task-interruption-presentation.ts`: the pending-resume read now also requires the task to be in a resumable status, assigned to the run's agent, not owned by another execution or checkout run, the run's question not cancelled, and the agent invokable (not paused, terminated or pending approval). These mirror `readNativeSessionResumptionAgent`. - `native-session-resumption-statuses.ts`: one shared status set used by both the scheduler admission and the read model. - No time cap: provider cooldowns and remote backoff schedules stay visible as a pending resume. ## Verification - `task-interruption-query.test.ts` (embedded Postgres): a reassigned task and a blocked task show one Retry; a paused agent asks to be resumed; in each case `readNativeSessionResumptionAgent` also refuses the candidate, so the read model and the scheduler agree. A resume an hour out (provider cooldown) stays `retry_scheduled` with no Retry. Red on master for the reassigned case. - All 57 presentation and query tests pass. Server typecheck passes. ## Risks - Low risk. Read model only. - A review-assignment resume (reviewer is not the assignee) shows Retry instead of the pending resume. That is the safe fallback. - Deferrals for a pause hold, dependency readiness or a competing run are not mirrored. Those gates also hold a manual Retry, so no competing action appears. - The `POST /issues/:id/retry` endpoint is unchanged. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file editing, embedded Postgres tests). ## 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>