mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
86814c6550
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work performed by AI agents. > - Restart recovery must preserve each run's workspace and execution owner. > - A retained remote lease can refer to an archived sandbox. > - The reattachment path returned that lease without making it ready. > - A short project-authentication command then had to start the sandbox. > - This PR resumes and verifies the exact retained allocation before preparation. > - Recovery keeps the recorded workspace and preserves saved work if resume fails. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run resumed after a controller restart. Its saved sandbox had been archived. Reattachment returned its lease without a provider lifecycle resume. The next project-authentication probe tried to start that sandbox with its 15-second command budget. The start failed before the probe could inspect project settings. The heartbeat reported a configuration conflict and stopped work. **What did you expect to happen?** Make the exact retained sandbox ready through the existing bounded lifecycle operation. Verify its allocation before running short preparation commands. Keep the validated lease and recorded working directory. Never acquire a replacement in this path. **Steps to reproduce** Hold the provider's exact-lease resume pending and call remote reattachment for an active ephemeral lease. Before this change, acquisition returns immediately. The added tests hold acquisition until resume completes and reject missing, changed or expired allocation evidence. Provider compatibility cases retain the recorded workspace when resume omits directory metadata or returns the allocation root. **Deployment mode** Native Runner in a sandbox with a retained workspace and managed AI connection. The observed provider was Daytona. Refs #18910, which restores selection of retries using current remote workspace storage. This change repairs the next preparation boundary. Related #17421 and #18559 change project-file inspection; they do not make retained sandbox leases ready. ## What Changed - Resume the exact validated sandbox lease before returning it to preparation. - Require the receipt to confirm the original provider allocation without reporting expiration. - Keep the original database lease and recorded directory. Resume metadata can describe the allocation root. - Pass the existing typed resume-directory input through the runtime facade. - Preserve retained E2B sandboxes when resume timeout setup or workspace inspection fails. Keep new-allocation cleanup and explicit release/destroy behavior. - Preserve plugin-task reattachment and lease identity checks. - Update the Stop-accounting fixture to confirm exact-allocation resume before cleanup, with its budget, ownership and no-paid-work assertions intact. - Document the ordering and add readiness, receipt, failure and ownership regressions. ## Verification - Red: seven initial retained-lease cases failed before the readiness change. Two receipt-compatibility cases and four E2B preservation cases failed before their fixes. - Green: all four runtime, workspace-preparation, heartbeat-recovery and orchestrator suites pass: **442 tests**. - The Stop-accounting CI failure reproduced locally. All **five** integration cases pass with the exact-allocation resume fixture. - All **22 E2B tests**, the standalone plugin typecheck and its build pass. - **13 Daytona safety cases** pass, including recorded directories, allocation sentinel rejection, saved-file reads and no replacement creation. The SDK boundary is simulated; the saved-file case uses real files and a POSIX shell. - These focused checks cover **482 passing cases**. - Full recursive typecheck, final server typecheck and full workspace build pass on macOS arm64 with Node 24.22.2 and PostgreSQL 18.1. - Greptile is **5/5** on head `32f915a475275680bcf2a2aa43ae0c72f4e4b1db`. Both original review threads are resolved. - All current-head CI gates pass. The check rollup has 54 successful checks, three skipped checks and one neutral check. - The separate Paperclip Review check remains queued. Its public response says work is paused and the request is saved. The review task is waiting for saved-file recovery, so no Paperclip assessment of this head is claimed. The branch-required gate has passed. - A read-only deployed trace showed an archived sandbox start fail at the short probe's 15-second deadline. Actual provider reattachment with this revision has not been exercised. Live recovery remains unverified until rollout. ## Risks Recovery now makes one bounded lifecycle call before short preparation commands. A missing resume capability or a missing, changed or expired allocation receipt holds recovery. The existing runtime and provider retain allocation and sentinel verification. The path does not acquire, release, replace or reseed the lease. Warm providers can return their existing allocation. E2B retains the existing sandbox if resume setup fails; explicit lifecycle cleanup still owns its removal. No background polling, credential-policy change, migration, workflow change or lockfile change is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection, tool use and code execution. The exact backend snapshot and context window were not exposed. ## 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>