mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
ec94e43c4a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Isolated repository re-home moves a task workspace onto the shared project clone, so the private clone can be deleted > - One re-home test moves two 65 MiB files on purpose, to prove that large changes still move > - On CI this test times out at the 15000 ms default in pull requests that do not touch re-home > - The test does a fixed, large amount of CPU work, and a loaded runner cannot finish it in 15 seconds > - This pull request gives that one test a 60000 ms budget that matches its data volume > - The benefit is a stable server shard, with no change to what the test proves ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A survey of failed `PR` workflow runs found intermittent failures of one test in pull requests that do not touch re-home: ``` FAIL src/__tests__/isolated-repository-rehome.test.ts > isolated repository source re-home > re-homes a workspace whose changes exceed the default restore point limits Error: Test timed out in 15000ms. ``` Examples: jobs 127465954304, 127499682176, and 127538360101 (shard `general-server-without-chat` 7/12). The survey counted 4 such failures. The other 27 tests in the file passed in each of these runs. **Expected behavior** The test passes on every run, and it still proves that a 65 MiB untracked file and a 65 MiB saved ignored file move with an exact snapshot match. **Steps to reproduce** Run the unchanged test on master while the CPU is oversubscribed: ```sh cd server node load.mjs 72 pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/isolated-repository-rehome.test.ts -t 'exceed the default' --reporter=verbose ``` `load.mjs` starts 72 busy-loop Node processes (4 per core on an 18-core machine) and runs the command. The test fails with `Test timed out in 15000ms`. **Root cause** The file sizes are part of the test contract. #17410 added the test to prove two fixes that only show above 64 MiB: `applyRestorePoint` streams `git diff --binary` into `git apply`, and the ignored-file read sizes its buffer from the tree. So the files cannot get smaller. Each full pass over the workspace writes both files into a Git object store, so it hashes and deflates 130 MB. One test run makes about eight passes: the test's `before` snapshot, the re-home `before` snapshot, the capture, the import into the shared clone, the apply, the two verification snapshots, and the test's final snapshot. That is about 1 GB of SHA-1 and zlib work, plus the byte comparison. I timed the phases with the re-home hooks on an idle machine: snapshot 0.6 s each, capture and import 1.9 s, worktree add and apply 0.9 s, verification 1.0 s. With 2 busy processes per core the same phases took 1.3 s, 3.9 s, 1.3 s, and 2.1 s. The work is CPU-bound and scales with load. No phase waits on a timer, a lock, or a background task. The 15000 ms default is the cause. ## What Changed - Give `re-homes a workspace whose changes exceed the default restore point limits` an explicit 60000 ms test budget. - No other test changes. No production changes. No retries, no skips. ## Verification Red, on master, 72 busy-loop processes: ``` × ... re-homes a workspace whose changes exceed the default restore point limits → Test timed out in 15000ms. ``` Green, with this change, same load: ``` ✓ ... re-homes a workspace whose changes exceed the default restore point limits 30414ms ``` So the test needs about 30 s at 4 processes per core, which is half of the new budget. A hung re-home still fails inside 60 s. Full file, idle: 28/28 tests pass. ```sh cd server pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/isolated-repository-rehome.test.ts ``` ## Risks - Low risk. One test budget changes. - A real slowdown in the re-home path of up to 4 times would no longer fail this test. Other tests in the file keep the 15000 ms default. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits) and extended reasoning. ## 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>