mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
5c185db77c
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Task tree control lets the board pause a task tree and then resume
it.
> - A pause stops the runs that are active in the tree. The release must
then continue the work that was pending.
> - A child task whose run was active at pause time did not start again
after release. The child became blocked and asked for a user message.
> - A pause is an operator hold, not a failure. It must not strand work,
and it must not require reconciliation for a run that never started.
> - This pull request re-dispatches interrupted work one time on
release, and it settles a legacy Stop that never entered the adapter.
> - The benefit is that pause and resume keep a task tree moving without
manual recovery, and real safety gates stay in force.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A parent task delegated two children. One child's run was active (in
host workspace preparation, before the adapter started) when the board
paused the parent's tree. The pause cancelled that run. After the board
released the hold, no new run started for that child. The child became
`blocked` with the execution blocker cause
`legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation`. Later the next action became
"Send a message to continue." A sibling child that had no active run at
pause time resumed normally.
**Expected behavior**
A run that a subtree pause cancels is an operator hold. On release, the
pending work starts again one time, automatically. It does not go
through execution reconciliation when the run never entered its adapter.
It does not wait for a user message.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a parent task and a child task that is assigned to an agent.
2. Wake the child. While its run is in host preparation (or queued),
call `POST /api/issues/:parentId/tree-holds` with `{ "mode": "pause" }`.
3. Call `POST /api/issues/:parentId/tree-holds/:holdId/release` without
`wakeAgents`.
4. Before this change, no new run starts, and `getExecutionBlocker`
reports `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` for the child.
**Root cause**
- (a) The pause records each interrupted run in the hold member snapshot
(`activeRunId`). Nothing used that record on release.
- (b) Release woke tasks only when `metadata.wakeAgents === true`.
Without it, release relied on stranded-issue recovery. That recovery
stands down when the latest run was cancelled by an operator
(`isOperatorCancelledRun`). So the interrupted child had no owner.
- (c) The pause Stop of a legacy run in preparation is written directly
as `cancelled`. Legacy terminalization classifies a cancelled run with
no bootstrap evidence as an unknown outcome. It records
`legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation`, although the gated dispatch
never entered the adapter.
- Native runs: the verified native Stop does not create the
reconciliation hold, but gap (b) applies to native runs too. The release
change is runtime-independent.
## What Changed
- `issueTreeControlService.findOwedPauseResume` decides if a task is
owed one resume. The task's latest run must be an operator Stop that a
pause hold member snapshot names, recorded while that hold was active.
The task must still be executable by the same agent, and no pause may
still cover it. The obligation belongs to the run, so overlapping pauses
keep it until the last covering release.
- New `services/issue-tree-resume.ts` re-dispatches owed work with wake
reason `issue_tree_resumed` (`holdId` and `interruptedRunId` in the
context). A compare-and-set claim (`treeHoldResume`) on the interrupted
run makes the resume happen at most once. A failed wake returns the
claim.
- Pause release and `mode: "resume"` call it for every member of the
released hold, also without `wakeAgents`. When `wakeAgents` is true, the
existing loop wakes every executable member.
- A task that still has an execution blocker is not replayed. The
release writes `issue.tree_resume_wake_skipped`, the blocker stays
visible, and the obligation stays unclaimed.
- `releaseHold` updates only an `active` hold. A repeated release gets
`409`.
- `settleCancelledLegacyPreparation`: when the executor that owned a
cancelled legacy run proves that dispatch never entered the adapter, it
records bootstrap evidence and resolves that run's
`legacy-execution:<runId>` hold as `false_positive`. It also corrects an
automatic no-replay disposition and restores a `blocked` status only
when that disposition made the change. Then it re-dispatches owed work,
for a release that happened while the Stop was unwinding. It requires a
requested Stop with no existing recovery receipt, and no process,
session, native finalization, unreleased lease, or execution-start
event.
- `settleUnrecoverableExecutions` waits while a legacy executor still
holds its controller lease, and records a `legacyCancellationBlock`
receipt when it blocks a task for a cancelled legacy run.
- Docs: `doc/execution-semantics.md` and `doc/composer-stop.md` describe
the resume rule.
## Verification
- New regression
`server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-pause-resume-run.test.ts` uses embedded
Postgres, the real heartbeat, and the real tree-control routes:
- A run paused during preparation: nothing runs during the hold, there
is no blocker, and release creates exactly one `issue_tree_resumed` run
that succeeds. A second release returns `409` and creates no run.
- Release before the stopped preparation finishes unwinding (with the
periodic disposition run in between): exactly one resumed run after the
executor settles.
- An automatic no-replay disposition that ran first: the blocker clears,
the status returns to `in_progress`, and release resumes once.
- Overlapping child and parent pauses: no resume while the parent pause
remains, then exactly one resume after it is released.
- A queued run cancelled by the pause: release creates exactly one
resumed run.
- A task reassigned to a user during the hold: no resume.
- A mid-turn legacy Stop with unknown outcome: no replay, the
reconciliation blocker remains, and `issue.tree_resume_wake_skipped` is
logged.
- Red before each fix: the first 4 cases failed on master; the 3 review
cases failed on the first PR commit. All 7 pass now.
- Also passed locally: `issue-tree-control-routes`,
`issue-tree-control-service`, `heartbeat-workspace-busy`,
`heartbeat-undispatched-execution-wait`, `execution-control-work`,
`legacy-workspace-restore-recovery`, `legacy-continuation-authority`,
`task-retry`, `legacy-execution-recovery`, `agent-conversations`,
`heartbeat-retry-scheduling`, `satisfied-connection-intents`.
- Not verified here: a live staging pause/resume. Re-check on staging
after deploy.
## Risks
- Behavior change: release now starts the work that the pause
interrupted, also without `wakeAgents`. Before, that work stayed idle.
Other idle tasks still wake only with `wakeAgents`.
- The settlement trusts the executor's adapter-entry flag. The flag is
set only inside the atomic dispatch gate, which refuses a cancelled run.
The settlement also requires no process, session, lease, or execution
event.
- A native run whose Stop has not finalized at release time is not a
target. Stranded recovery and explicit wake still apply.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude
Code with tool use (shell, file edit, test execution).
## 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>