mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-02 08:28:48 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
e09f40888a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls agent execution and task ownership. > - A native run needs its task binding until it reports its result. > - Direct task updates already reject self-status changes that remove this binding. > - Recovery resolution can also change the source task status. > - That route did not use the same protection. > - This change rejects the unsafe status change before the task or recovery receipt changes. > - The run can then use semantic completion while normal recovery permissions remain effective. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18411. **What happened?** A running native owner can resolve an older recovery action with `sourceIssueStatus: "in_review"` or `"done"`. The request succeeds and changes its own task status. That can release the execution binding before the run reports. Later task tools fail with `paperclip_runner_tool_binding_not_authorized`. **Expected behavior** Return a conflict before the task status or action receipt changes. Tell the run to report through `paperclip_finish` or `paperclip_block`. Preserve unchanged-status resolution, Board recovery, legacy-agent behavior, and the existing conversation and handoff rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Give a running native owner the task execution lock and an older recovery action. 2. Call `POST /api/issues/{id}/recovery-actions/resolve` as that run. Use `outcome: "restored"` and `sourceIssueStatus: "in_review"`. 3. Before this fix, the route returns 200 and changes the status. After this fix, it returns 409 with `native_run_status_reported_by_finish` and makes no task or action mutation. ## What Changed - Reuse the existing native self-status guard inside recovery resolution's source-task transaction. - Let the guard receive the requested status from either route contract. - Add HTTP route regressions for rejected review/completion transitions and continued task editing after rejection. - Cover unchanged-status native resolution, Board recovery and legacy-agent resolution. - Update execution semantics and both recovery maps. ## Verification - Baseline `91fdf02`: the two new rejection cases fail because the real Express route returns 200. Three safety cases pass. - Fixed source: all 198 tests in `server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` pass. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes. This is structural evidence. - Greptile and Paperclip Review both give the integrated head 5/5 with no actionable findings. - Full recursive typecheck, full build, and a repeat of all 198 route tests pass at integrated head `0fa104dfb240500acd01303cd446363ea39c6c75`. All current-head CI gates pass (55 successful checks/statuses; no failed or pending checks). - The full local `pnpm test:run` command fails in chat-test line selection with `No test found`, before assertions. This also occurs with the unchanged master chat test file. It is not a passing full local suite. - The route tests use the real route, validation and guard. They mock service and database boundaries. The observed hosted failure establishes the original mechanism. Fixed-source live provider acceptance remains unverified. No deployment or merge is part of this PR. ## Risks - A native owner now receives a conflict for a previously accepted recovery status change. It must use the existing semantic result path. - This prevents a new binding loss. It does not prove that an old remote executor stopped or recover missing provider state. - Board, legacy, conversation and handoff behavior retains existing authority. The regression includes representative allowed paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific snapshot ID or context-window size. ## 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 (198 focused route cases; the full local command has the recorded selection failure) - [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>