mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
e9db5e0d03
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An agent can review a GitHub pull request. After the agent publishes the review, the task can wait in review for the next GitHub reply. A later run of the same task can inherit this wait. > - Issue lists and inbox attention show these waits. For each waiting task, the server reads the inherited GitHub review wait: the source comment, the latest review, and the review publication. > - The server did these reads one time for each waiting task. A list request with N waiting tasks sent N copies of the prepared review statement and N copies of the publication read. > - On a hosted database, the prepared review statement ran about 270,000 times in about 2.5 hours (up to 87 calls per second). The run identity read before it ran the same number of times. The list read that calls it ran only about 1,400 times, so each list read started about 190 review reads on average. No other caller reads the waits of many runs in a loop. > - This pull request reads the reviews and the publications of all waits of one list request with one statement each. Each wait gets the same result as before. > - The benefit is about 200 times fewer review statements and fewer pool connections for each issue list. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20400 (shares review-wait reads between the callers of one request). Refs #20551 (authorizes the waits of one issue page with one read; this change does the same for the inherited GitHub review reads of that page). **What happened** `listExternalReviewWaits` called `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` one time for each candidate wait, inside `Promise.all`. Each call sent a run identity read, a source-message read, the prepared `inherited_github_review_wait` statement, and a publication read. A list with N waits sent each statement N times. **Expected behavior** One list request sends one review statement and one publication read for each company. The result of each wait does not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put many tasks of one company in review with an inherited GitHub review wait. 2. Open the issue list or the inbox. 3. Count the statements of the database. The review statement runs one time for each waiting task. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/chat-channels/github/review-wait.ts`: - Split `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` into shared steps: the source comment read, the review checks, the publication key, and the published result. The single-run read uses the same prepared statement and the same checks as before. - Add `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits(db, runs)`. It reads the source comment of each run with the same lineage check as before. Then, for each company, one `DISTINCT ON` statement reads the latest review for each (source comment, task, agent) key, with the same joins, filters and order as the prepared statement. One read finds the processed publications. Each run gets the same result as a separate call: `null`, `revoked`, or `published`. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/external-review-wait.ts`: `listExternalReviewWaits` uses the batch read. The rest of the list and its authorization do not change. - `server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`: a new test reads 18 runs in one batch and compares each result with a separate single-run read. The runs include each revocation case (connection disabled or inactive, review state, review agent, repository, repository id, thread, publication, identity, company), a newer unreviewed head, no identity, no task, an endpoint of another agent, a run in another company and a duplicate run. The test also makes sure that the batch sends one review statement and one publication read for each company. The existing revocation tests also check the batch read. - `server/src/__tests__/helpers/github-review-wait.ts`: the seed helper can add a wait to an existing company and agent. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts server/src/__tests__/github-review-check-state.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-review-wait-authorization.integration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/blocked-inbox-review-wait-scope.test.ts` - Focused local run of every test that imports the changed modules or the seed helper (7 files, 335 tests passed), including `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `external-review-wait.test.ts` and `legacy-execution-recovery.test.ts`. The change to the shared seed helper makes `pnpm verify` select the full server suite, so CI supplies that coverage. - Local measurement on real PostgreSQL (embedded PostgreSQL, `ANALYZE` after seeding). One company and agent, each wait has 5 reviews and 10 outbound messages. "Before" is the previous list code: one `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` call for each run in `Promise.all`. "After" is `readInheritedGitHubReviewWaits`. The runs alternate order in each pair. Both return equal results in every sample. | Waits | Version | Statements | Review statements | Median ms | Min–max ms | Samples | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 200 | before | 800 | 200 | 106.8 | 98.0–117.5 | 10 | | 200 | after | 402 | 1 | 44.3 | 41.6–50.9 | 10 | | 20 | before | 80 | 20 | 9.8 | 8.6–14.7 | 12 | | 20 | after | 42 | 1 | 6.3 | 5.3–7.0 | 12 | - `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` of the batch review statement for 200 waits: index scans on each join, 6.7 ms execution. The single statement: 0.05 ms execution and about 2.7 ms planning for each call. - The run identity read and the source-message read still run one time for each wait. They are cheap on the hosted database (about 0 ms each), and they keep the lineage check for each run. ## Risks - Low risk. The batch statement uses the same joins, filters and order as the prepared statement, and `DISTINCT ON` keeps the first row for each key. The array filters can also match a mix of two keys. The code uses only rows of exact requested keys. - The single-run read and its prepared statement do not change. The finalizer, the status committer, and the attachment reuse paths still use it. - Errors do not change: a 403 from the lineage check gives `revoked`, and other errors are thrown. - No migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (code reading, editing, shell, tests). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>