mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
f513f0efd9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip keeps task work durable across server restarts. > - Restart recovery records a certificate when a Runner preparation ended before provider work started. > - Automatic recovery already verifies that certificate together with saved files and stopped leases. > - Explicit Retry called a preparation helper that only reached this proof for status `interrupted`. > - A certified `failed/process_lost` source therefore stayed blocked after its files were recovered. > - This pull request makes the helper reuse the same existing proof. > - A queued user Retry can then admit one new turn while all current safety and policy gates remain effective. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task had a certified process-lost preparation, verified saved-workspace receipts, a destroyed source sandbox, and one or two later attempts refused before dispatch. Its accepted Retry request stayed deferred with `execution_recovery` and created no successor. The explicit admission helper excluded this source before it could use the preparation proof added in #19464. This also prevented the refused-attempt continuation path from #19466 from advancing. **Expected behavior** Explicit Retry must use the same positive pre-provider proof as restart recovery. It must preserve source history, refuse contradictory execution evidence, honor current policy gates, and admit at most one successor for the existing request. **Steps to reproduce** Persist a legacy preparing run as failed with `process_lost` and the host bootstrap certificate that provider work did not start. Record its canonical committed snapshot, recovery/finalization operations, clean workspace authority, and exact destroyed-lease receipt. Add one or two unstarted cancelled descendants with the dispatcher's execution-wait receipt. Accept one Retry request and resume it concurrently twice. Before this fix, no successor exists and the same request remains deferred. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `a6c22806308e8a3c7b21145f80fb471756bb443d`. Related repairs: #19464 and #19466. ## What Changed - Reuse `isInterruptedNativePreparation` before the existing failed-preparation checks. The existing no-coordinator and historical-ancestor restrictions remain. - Add real-database regressions for one and two refused descendants, duplicate clicks, concurrent resume, continuation dispatch, preserved history, and unchanged recovery attempt counts. - Add late-gate checks for provider work, provider events, a newer native checkpoint, missing bootstrap proof, missing stop proof, a changed snapshot, formal approval, user Stop, agent/company pause, and a spent budget. - Clarify that explicit admission uses the existing certified preparation proof. ## Verification - Red: both real-database cases passed the saved-file, interrupted-preparation, and refused-dispatch proof checks, but the original successor-count assertion found zero queued runs instead of one. The accepted requests retained `execution_recovery`. - Green: the same cases admit one successor after two concurrent resume calls. Continuation dispatch resolves to the latest refused attempt. Source and cancelled-attempt history stay intact. - Complete relevant local suites: **456/456 passed** before rebase. Command from `server`: `../node_modules/.bin/vitest run --config vitest.config.ts --fsModuleCache src/services/task-retry.test.ts src/services/explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`. - Final head `9788382c019df57899af06e81211e7c5165e7f0d`: the thirteen new cases passed **13/13** again after rebase. Required CI and review remain pending. - Environment: macOS ARM64, Node 26, Vitest 5.0.3, disposable real PostgreSQL. Tests exercise production request, admission, and continuation services. No provider executes and no hosted task is changed. - Hosted recovery still requires rollout and verification through the original queued requests. Final reviewed head: `9788382c019df57899af06e81211e7c5165e7f0d`. [Required CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42273663624) passed (56 successful checks, four expected skips, none pending or failed). Greptile and Paperclip Review both rated this head 5/5 with no findings; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks The change accepts only the existing verified preparation contract. An error label alone is insufficient. Provider-started or contradictory state remains blocked. Saved-file, lease, approval, Stop, pause, and budget checks remain effective. No schema, retry limit, provider setting, account selection, or production scheduler changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 family via Codex, with coding and tool use. The exact model ID and context window are unavailable in this session's metadata. ## 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>