mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 11:01:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
e401ed006b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Mine combines task and run data behind the issue-read admission limit. > - Its cancellation test aborts a request while the server still owns its snapshot computation. > - The test waited for seven separate list requests and assumed the snapshot had also finished. > - CI can return those list requests first, so the next snapshot read correctly shares the existing computation. > - This pull request completes a snapshot read before it checks that a fresh read starts new work. > - The regression keeps its admission-limit checks without depending on database read order. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Full [CI run 41671193176](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41671193176/job/126041533414) failed `retains admission until aborted snapshot work settles (coalesced reader: false)`. It expected nine computation starts but saw eight. The aborted snapshot was still running after the seven list requests returned. A follow-up snapshot request could share that work. **Expected behavior** The test must retain the occupied slot while the aborted work runs. It must wait for snapshot completion before it expects a new computation. **Steps to reproduce** Run the full serialized CI shard containing `server/src/__tests__/inbox-mine-routes.test.ts`. The assertion depends on read order and can pass in isolation. The unchanged focused cancellation cases passed locally after the CI failure. The test does not await the aborted server computation, which explains the race. **Paperclip version or commit** CI failure: `1859d17b3ada7865c0ad4c5835eda23c32e33a48`, based on `f7ad1dc7cacedf7153a45e854ddfdd544aa87abd`. This branch now includes master at `adb49a4434`. **Deployment mode** Source checkout; real HTTP requests and disposable PostgreSQL. Refs #18790, which introduced the snapshot test. The user-reported [run 41665098924](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41665098924) also had three UI fixture failures and several runner shutdowns. All three UI failures reproduced locally. This PR first repaired them; concurrent #18799 merged the same repair while CI ran. The branch preserves that upstream repair, so the remaining diff is this inbox test. No duplicate inbox completion repair was found. ## What Changed - Complete a snapshot request as a barrier for any remaining aborted snapshot work. - Then assert that a fresh snapshot request is a cache miss and starts exactly one new computation. - Retain the eight-slot limit, rejected ninth request, and coalesced-reader assertions. ## Verification - The first full CI matrix exposed the eight-versus-nine assertion failure linked above. Both UI shards passed after the fixture correction. - All six real-database inbox route cases pass with the completion barrier. Server typecheck also passes after that repair. - Before the master merge, both affected UI suites and the account-scoped access reader passed 30 tests. The reader still rejects another account's response. Token gates pass. - On final merged head `f93d1e309a1c76bb6ded57f76efe08b876afa164`, the combined 36 focused tests, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build` all pass. - The local `pnpm test:run` completed four chat shards with 1,279 passing tests. It was stopped during shard five when master advanced. It is not reported as a full-suite pass. The final full CI matrix verifies the current head. - Full [CI run 41674890115](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41674890115) passed on final head `f93d1e309a1c76bb6ded57f76efe08b876afa164`: 48 jobs passed and one optional selection job was skipped. All PR checks are green with none pending. - Greptile and Paperclip Review are both 5/5 on that same head. Greptile added zero comments, and no review threads are open. ## Risks Low risk. The diff changes test synchronization only. It uses actual request completion and adds no timing delay. Production behavior, permissions, schemas, and API contracts do not change. No operator documentation change is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID 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>