mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
Devin FoleyandClaude
ea1e321d86
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Remote sandbox providers are part of the execution environment layer that lets agents run outside the local host. > - The Daytona sandbox-provider plugin exposes CPU, memory, disk, and GPU settings so operators can request larger execution sandboxes. > - The plugin was forwarding resource settings through snapshot/default creation, but Daytona rejects resource overrides on that path. > - Image-backed Daytona creation does support resource settings, so Paperclip should only send those values when an image is configured. > - This pull request makes the Daytona contract explicit in validation and runtime acquisition. > - The benefit is that operators get a clear Paperclip error for unsupported snapshot/default resource configs, while image-backed sandboxes still receive the requested allocation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. ### What happened? Daytona sandbox environments can be configured with CPU/memory/disk/GPU resource settings, but snapshot/default Daytona sandbox creation rejects those resource overrides. Paperclip could pass unsupported resource fields through to Daytona and surface an opaque provider error. ### Expected behavior Paperclip should only send resource fields on Daytona creation paths that support them, and it should reject unsupported resource configurations before creating a sandbox. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a Daytona sandbox environment with resource values such as `cpu: 4` and `memory: 4`. 2. Leave the environment on snapshot/default creation by not setting an image. 3. Acquire a Daytona sandbox lease. 4. Observe Daytona reject the resource override on the snapshot/default path. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against the current Daytona sandbox-provider plugin behavior before this PR. This PR fixes the contract in the plugin code and tests. ### Deployment mode Local authenticated Paperclip instance using the Daytona sandbox provider. Additional scope: - Daytona provider only. - No schema changes. - No non-Daytona provider changes. Related search performed: - `gh search issues "Daytona resources snapshot repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --limit 10` - `gh search prs "Daytona resources snapshot repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --limit 10` ## What Changed - Restrict Daytona `resources` create params to image-backed sandbox creation. - Add validation/runtime guard for resource settings without an image. - Keep image-backed resource metadata and reusable-lease sentinel behavior covered by tests. - Update Daytona plugin tests for image-backed resources and snapshot/default rejection. ## Verification - `pnpm -C packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona test` - `pnpm -C packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona build` - Manual Daytona SDK probe in a local authenticated instance: image-backed creation with `daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0` returned a 4 CPU / 4 GiB sandbox and deleted cleanly. - Greptile Review: 5/5, no inline comments. ## Risks - Existing Daytona environments that set resource values while relying on snapshot/default creation will now fail validation/acquisition with a clear error instead of calling Daytona and failing there. - Operators who need custom resource sizes should use image-backed creation or a provider-side resource-sized snapshot workflow. - Low migration risk: no database schema changes and no changes to non-Daytona providers. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent. Exact context window is not exposed in this environment. Tool-enabled workflow with shell, GitHub CLI, database inspection, and local test/build 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 - [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: Claude <noreply@paperclip.ing>