Files
PaperClipAI/tests
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5 e8f07b2a39 test(restart-chaos): fire faults relative to user actions and run state, add K6 crash loop (#19513)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The control plane must keep tasks moving when the server restarts
> - The restart chaos harness (#19477) kills the server only at a random
time after a task starts
> - Many restart bugs depend on what the user or the run was doing at
that moment: a comment just sent, a Retry just clicked, a run still
queued, a long tool call, or a second crash during startup recovery
> - The harness cannot aim at these moments yet, so these cases occur
only by chance
> - This pull request adds fault triggers that fire relative to a user
action or a run state, and the K6 crash loop
> - The benefit is that chaos waves can target these boundaries on
purpose and replay them

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #19477

**What is the problem?**
The restart chaos harness fires each fault at a seeded random offset
from task launch. It cannot fire a fault right after the harness posts a
comment to an active run, right after a Retry click, while a run is
queued, during a long tool call, or a second time while the server is in
the `recovering` startup phase.

**Why is it a problem?**
These are the boundaries where restart bugs hide (plan faults K6 and K8,
boundaries B1, B6 and B8). Random timing seldom hits them, and a replay
cannot repeat them.

**What is the proposed solution?**
Add a `--triggers` option. Each task samples a trigger with its cell.
The observer arms the fault when the trigger condition holds, then fires
it after a seeded delay. Add the K6 crash-loop fault to the supervisor.

## What Changed

- `types.ts`, `config.ts`: add `TRIGGER_IDS` (`time`, `comment`,
`retry`, `queued`, `tool`), the `--triggers` option, and the `K6` fault
kind.
- `scheduler.ts`: sample a trigger per task. `comment` pairs only with
C1 and `tool` only with B5. Each trigger has a seeded delay range.
`retry` adds an extra K1 after the planned fault. A replay re-arms the
task's own triggered faults.
- `observer.ts`: arm each triggered fault from the observed state: the
follow-up reached a running run, an accepted Retry, the first run still
queued, or the first `bench.sh` progress. A trigger that can no longer
hold is recorded as `triggerMissed`.
- `supervisor.ts`: K6 kills the replacement again as soon as
`/api/ready` reports `recovering` (or `ready`, if recovery was too fast
to see), then once more just after `ready`. The receipt records the
phase that each kill hit.
- `main.ts`, `ledger.ts`: pass the trigger to the fault receipt, the
timeline and the ledger. The summary shows the trigger in each cell.
- `triggers.test.ts`: unit tests for planning, firing, misses, replay
and the crash-loop phase rule.
- `README.md`: document the triggers and K6.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts`
(52 tests pass).
- `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs tests/restart-chaos` passes.
- Live: `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs
tests/restart-chaos/main.ts --env local --adapters codex,claude,opencode
--faults K1,K6 --triggers comment,retry,queued,tool --concurrency 3
--tasks 6` runs waves with the new triggers.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change is in the test harness only. The default trigger
is `time`, so existing waves and replays keep their behavior.
- A trigger can miss its window (for example, a run starts before the
first poll). The ledger records the miss, so the task is not counted as
a crossing of that boundary.

## Model Used

- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits).

## 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>
2026-11-06 13:49:52 -06:00
..