mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
c96c751f39
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their tasks. > - The scheduler can start several runs for one agent. > - Each task still needs one execution owner. > - Task creation and recovery can queue assignments for the same task. > - The scheduler previously marked both runs running before starting either executor. > - This change claims the run and task ownership in one transaction. > - Tasks with different IDs retain concurrent execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13882. Related queue work: #11830 and #13965; those address different admission and cancellation paths. **What happened?** The Grok subscription Product campaign exposed two assignment runs for one task. Task creation and periodic recovery started runs within 200 ms. Both acquired Daytona sandboxes. One failed before provider work with `paperclip_runner_attachment_staging_not_authorized` because the other owned the task. Fixture cleanup then found an active session. The original failed result is retained in [campaign 36071063537](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36071063537). **Expected behavior** Only the task execution owner may start provider setup. Competing queued work must wait. Different tasks may use the agent's available slots. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set an agent's concurrent run limit to two. 2. Queue task-creation and recovery assignment runs for the same task. 3. Resume the queue while holding adapter execution open. 4. Before this fix, both runs become running. Only one has the task execution lock. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `8781f06a8` and in the Grok campaign at `4196a4cd`. ## What Changed - Use the same company-scoped task ownership gate for assignments, direct comments, and queued comments. - Leave competing work queued while another live run owns the task. Transfer a terminal pointer only after the tracked executor and durable environment leases/finalization settle, including cleanup on another controller. - Commit the running state and task execution owner together. - Preserve the dedicated review path and the native replacement checkout guard. - Add sixteen database regressions for assignment/comment orderings, unrelated concurrent tasks, and cross-controller cleanup fences. ## Verification - Live subscription Product E2E planning passed on its first attempt in both Daytona (351,197 ms) and local execution (268,883 ms), with 6/6 matchers and cleanup passing in each, on combined source `1b0551bb7c8de3c54f4bee64dbe2c88328b3645e` ([campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36080870743)). The local screenshots and persisted state show the same plan revised, the first approval rejected, the revised approval accepted, and one completion. The full campaign remains unqualified because of a separate startup retry and EC2 Spot interruption. - The new same-task regression failed before the fix: two running rows instead of one. - All seven focused concurrency cases passed. Three comment cases failed before the shared gate was added. Five cross-controller cleanup cases failed before the durable gate was added. A warm-retention regression also failed before its successful release receipt was admitted; missing/failed receipts and a different retention policy stay blocked. - `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` from `server`: 48 passed. Native cleanup admission adds one passing test; task-drain release adds two. Total focused checks: 51 passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Current-head [CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36078495577) passes repository typecheck, tests, Rust checks, build, and browser suites. The unrelated repository-form browser shard passed one bounded rerun without assertion or code changes; its original navigation failure remains retained. No local Docker or Rust build was used. - The failed test's exact two sandboxes were checked: one was already absent; the other was deleted after its company, environment, and run labels matched. ## Risks The claim transaction adds a task row lock. It follows task-before-run lock order. A competing run stays queued until the current owner releases the task. The change does not alter attachment authorization, provider permissions, schemas, or public APIs. Review is 5/5 with all threads resolved on `23c0d13b6`. All CI checks pass on that exact head. Live Grok requalification will use the combined runner and scheduler source. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools and code execution. The exact serving identifier 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 ### Live regression verification The Daytona plan/revise/accept lifecycle in [Grok campaign 36080870743](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36080870743) passed on its first attempt at combined source `1b0551bb7c8de3c54f4bee64dbe2c88328b3645e`, in 351,197 ms, with all six outcome matchers and cleanup passing. The earlier competing-run failure remains retained. This is one live planning result; the complete Grok matrix and repeated qualification are separate gates, and this campaign also has separately retained infrastructure failures. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>