mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
ef9e17304c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Active runs publish workspace and provider progress. > - Each update must check the current run status before it publishes. > - This check fetched the full run, including prompts and runner configuration. > - This pull request reads only the four fields that progress publication uses. > - The benefit is less database transfer while each update still checks durable state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #17348 narrows authorization reads. This PR applies a separate projection to runtime progress. GitHub searches for runtime progress and run-status read PRs found no duplicate. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The database read before a runtime progress update. **Current behavior** Each update calls `getRun`. This reads large run context and runner configuration even though progress publication only uses the run ID, company ID, agent ID, and status. **Proposed behavior** Use a fresh four-column read for each update. Keep the existing active-status check, event fields, error propagation, and late-progress suppression. **Reason and benefit** Transfer progress can emit many updates for one run. A small status check avoids repeatedly transferring payloads that it does not use. **Breaking changes** None. No API response, schema, scheduling, or cancellation policy changes. ## What Changed - Add `getRunStatus` to the run-state owner. The full reader remains available to consumers that need execution data. - Wire the narrow reader into the lifecycle progress check. Remove the unused context field from that check's input contract. - Cover the exact selected fields, missing runs, database errors, large stored payloads, terminal transitions, and the public heartbeat service wiring. Document the read boundary. ## Verification - Run-state and lifecycle suites: 44 tests passed before the additional public-service regression. - Lifecycle, public-service wiring, and native cancellation suites: 36 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - The [full PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40013092548) passed on `95bf496f689049812646b5ccddcdf2cca21efad0`. All 54 reported checks passed; two conditional checks were skipped. This includes test shards, browser checks, Runner verification, production bundle boot, and clean npm installation. - `GIT_CONFIG_COUNT=1 GIT_CONFIG_KEY_0=init.defaultBranch GIT_CONFIG_VALUE_0=master pnpm test:run`: an additional local all-in-one run is still in progress; no full-local-pass claim. The process-scoped Git default matches existing master-only fixtures and does not change user configuration. - The initial description check failed because the dedup-search checkbox was missing. Searches are complete and the template checkbox is now included. The rerun passed on the same source commit. - Greptile Apex: 5/5 on `95bf496f689049812646b5ccddcdf2cca21efad0`, no findings or review threads. - No hosted deployment or bill reduction is claimed. CI and Apex are complete; this PR is merge-ready. ## Risks - Low scope: the query selects fewer columns and preserves the existing status read on every progress callback. It adds no worker, cache, timer, or idle query. - A run can still finish after the status read and before publication, as it could before this change. This PR does not change that concurrency boundary. - No migration or operator configuration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family). The runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window. ## 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 #` 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 (focused suites above; full suite is still running) - [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>