Devin FoleyandPaperclip
6fae6f2cb8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The wake queue releases task locks and can promote saved follow-up work when a run ends. > - An operator can stop a queued run before dispatch selects its runtime. > - The legacy release path can promote the old follow-up after that Stop. > - For an obsolete routine cycle, this can conflict with the current active cycle after cancellation has already committed. > - This pull request preserves the deferred input without promoting it at that release boundary. > - The benefit is that a queued Stop stays stopped and does not return an error from starting an obsolete follow-up. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #14300 and Refs #16339 describe other pre-dispatch cancellation paths. Related PR #16238 changes former-owner wake selection. This change addresses expected operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection, without changing those contracts. **What happened?** Stopping an unstarted legacy run committed its cancellation, then tried to promote a deferred wake. When another cycle of the same routine was already active, the issue lock update failed against `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The cancel request returned HTTP 500 even though the run was cancelled. Without a competing cycle, the Stop launched the old follow-up. **What did you expect to happen?** Release the stopped run's own locks and preserve deferred input for a later eligible instruction. Do not start the old queue as a side effect of Stop. **Steps to reproduce** Create two cycles of the same routine. Keep the current cycle active. Give the old cycle an unstarted legacy run with a verified bootstrap record and a deferred wake. Cancel that run as a board operator, then release its issue execution. The added database regression reproduces the failed lock update before the fix. **Paperclip version / commit** Reproduced on parent commit `976cdc77ed564dc3e014621505890b647e554a7f`. **Deployment mode** A remote runtime exposed the symptom. The regression uses embedded PostgreSQL and the real wake-queue adapter. ## What Changed - Recognize an expected operator Stop only when the legacy run has no runtime-selection time, start time, process-start time, or process identity. - Use the existing release boundary to preserve deferred input without promoting it. - Add database regressions for ordinary Stop, a competing routine cycle, repeated release, provider cancellation, runtime selection, and dispatched-run reconciliation. - Document the behavior and update both recovery maps. ## Verification - Before the fix, both queued Stop cases failed. The competing-cycle case raised `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The three control cases passed. - `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 7 files and 214 tests passed, including all five new database cases. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 10 map-script tests passed locally. The complete CI suite is green on `8e204eef87f1a593df5c183abef764e4b9eb5fd1`. The remaining serial local full-suite run was stopped once that unchanged-head CI verification passed; a local full-suite pass is not claimed. Apex review passed at 5/5 on the same head with no review threads. ## Risks - The change is limited to recorded operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection. Selected runtimes, dispatched work, provider cancellation, and native stop acknowledgement keep their existing paths. - Deferred work is retained. A later eligible instruction must still use normal admission and all current gates. - No schema migration or new authority is required. This regression is not proof of a live provider stop. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.