Files
PaperClipAI/doc
DottaandPaperclip 663fe667d6 fix(recovery): reconstruct missing native workspace obligations (#17877)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A failed native run can still own prepared files in a remote
sandbox.
> - Cleanup must preserve those files before another executor can start.
> - Older failure producers can omit the preservation record.
> - A saved message then waits for cleanup without a recovery owner.
> - This change reconstructs that record during user continuation and
orphan cleanup.
> - The existing worker saves the files, verifies stop, and returns
input to normal admission.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A failed native run retained a prepared workspace and an active sandbox
lease. It had no file-preservation obligation. Cleanup protected the
files. The next user message waited for a stop receipt that no worker
owned.

**Expected behavior**

A new message registers the missing maintenance work at once. Existing
orphan cleanup recovers historical saved input. Ordinary Retry remains
available. Saved input can start once, after verified preservation and
containment.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Persist a failed native run with an exact prepared remote workspace
and its active lease.
2. Leave its finalizer terminal and unowned. Omit the workspace recovery
record.
3. Send a user comment or run orphan cleanup.
4. Observe that no preservation worker starts and the comment remains
deferred.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced on `bd382eee536f4ada680072b1cc19100163c3d04a`.

**Deployment mode**

Native Runner with a remote sandbox. Local verification uses disposable
PostgreSQL 18 and real temporary workspace files.

Refs #17788 and #17800. Those fixes preserve future deadline failures
and register historical preservation on Retry. This change adds
automatic recovery for new and saved messages. Refs #17839 for the
separate restart-failure producer repair.

## What Changed

- Register missing preservation before an authenticated continuation
waits for remote cleanup.
- Reconstruct the same exact-source obligation during the existing
orphan lease sweep.
- Notify the existing preservation worker in the registration
transaction. Do not add a timer or history scan.
- Test ephemeral and reusable sources, live owners, active executors,
mismatched sources, rollback, lock contention, Retry and saved-input
delivery.
- Document the recovery contract and feature-map behavior.

## Verification

- Red: both new orphan-recovery cases fail on unchanged production code.
Four ownership and source negative controls pass.
- Red: a new comment starts no preservation work without the admission
repair.
- All 461 test cases across five affected suites pass across the local
runs. One existing 30-second timing case timed out under concurrent
verification; its isolated rerun passed with the same deadline and
assertions.
- The three final-head entry journeys pass again: HTTP Retry, HTTP
comment creation, and historical saved-input recovery.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on final head
`8fab8b2ba9049f640fd884094a2007a69465e6da`. The affected server
typecheck and build also pass.
- The integration journey holds the provider stop reply, checks that no
successor starts, preserves real files and newer host edits, and checks
one saved-input successor.
- Module-boundary checks, map checks and `git diff --check` pass.
- Native macOS PostgreSQL cannot start because host semaphore capacity
is exhausted. Database verification uses separate disposable PostgreSQL
databases for each suite. An earlier shared-database attempt caused
fixture interference and is not counted as a pass.
- Greptile gives 5/5 with no findings or unresolved threads on
`8fab8b2ba9049f640fd884094a2007a69465e6da`. All final-head GitHub checks
are settled: 55 passed, two Storybook checks skipped, and one neutral
Paperclip review. Full CI test, build, typecheck, Runner and browser
lanes pass. No full local `pnpm test:run` pass is claimed. The fix is
not deployed. This PR makes no claim of a live hosted model turn or
recovery of the original incident.

## Risks

- Registration grants maintenance authority only. Existing coordinator,
descriptor, allocation, stop, file-receipt and execution gates remain
effective.
- A locked source remains held. Its one-second lock timeout does not
prevent an unrelated source from registering recovery.
- New preservation writes wake existing work. Settled sources produce no
new recurring work. Historical discovery uses the existing orphan
cleanup lifecycle and its backoff.
- Provider lifecycle is simulated in local integration. PostgreSQL, HTTP
routing, file export/merge, the worker and queue admission are real.
- No schema, credential, model, trust, retry-budget or assignment
change.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, tool
use and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model 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
- [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>
2026-10-27 09:50:50 -05:00
..
2026-02-16 14:25:00 -06:00