mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
Dotta
f73ff4ace9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and preserves saved native sessions across releases. > - Filesystem independence receipts bind database facts to preserved controller and skill evidence. > - A workspace migration can add run metadata without changing those preserved bytes. > - That change makes the saved facts digest stale. Full native preservation then refuses the existing receipt, even after fresh source checks. > - WEB preservation already supports a full current proof and guarded receipt refresh. > - This pull request applies that pattern to full native receipts, reuses the authenticated archive, and keeps the existing ownership and destruction checks. > - The benefit is a current receipt without a new archive or provider replay. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #20322. **What happened?** Adding the canonical `legacyWorkspaceRecoveryMigration` marker to a settled native run makes its saved receipt stale. The full native preservation owner checks current evidence but then refuses the old facts digest. **Expected behavior** The owner can refresh the proof metadata after it proves all current facts and preserved bindings again. Changed evidence or authority must leave the prior receipt intact. **Steps to reproduce** Use the added PostgreSQL regression. It saves a valid receipt for a succeeded source with 453 checkpoint parts, adds the producer-shaped migration marker, and calls preservation again. The unchanged owner fails with `native_harness_filesystem_independence_unverified`. ## What Changed - Reuse the prior controller archive through the existing authenticated readback path. - Require the old receipt to match every current immutable binding before a facts refresh. Reconstruct its exact digest from unchanged bindings and the prior proof fields. - Recheck current database facts, assets, controller and local files under the existing finalizer, selection, task and run fences. - Publish with an exact prior-receipt comparison. Keep a valid concurrent winner and refuse changed receipts or new owners. - Audit the prior receipt digest and four proof fields. Add focused source, integrity, race and DB-only validation tests, and update the database guide. ## Verification - Local Node24 canonical preflight and plugin SDK prerequisites passed. The Runner build came from the content cache. After a normal merge of fresh master, preflight confirmed unchanged build inputs. - Genuine RED on `3040448da5`: the saved receipt is valid before the migration marker and stale afterward. Reproof fails at the old receipt guard (one failed, 102 intentionally not selected). Both retained RED attempts reached that same guard. - GREEN on final local merge `00f4b5d678083106afc88fb2f7e0588961b46d6d`: 19 PostgreSQL controls passed, 91 intentionally not selected (17.75s). The wrapper completed cleanup. - The positive preserves the same archive, controller bytes, assets, local proof and all 453 checkpoint parts. It performs authenticated object reads and zero archive PUTs. Runs, results, finalizers and leases remain unchanged except for the receipt. The audit reconstructs the exact prior receipt. - DB-only validation passes with the original home, state directory and volume absent, while storage reads throw. - Refusal and race controls cover changed asset bindings, raw controller bytes, missing destruction evidence, unknown receipt fields, a valid concurrent winner, changed receipts and a late active owner. Existing WEB refresh, physical finalization-lock and saved-binding controls also pass. - Server TypeScript passed, including the adjacent integration test. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 on exact head `00f4b5d678083106afc88fb2f7e0588961b46d6d`, with no review threads ([review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20438#issuecomment-6756548830)). Final-head CI is terminal: 56 success, 4 skipped and 1 neutral. The aggregate `ci / verify` passed ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42737704110)). - The first Runner-support job had one unrelated process-inspection nonpass: `server-stop.test.ts` expected a successful wrapper close, but its bounded process inspector returned no table. Its cause remains unknown. The unchanged test, process helpers, workflow and dependency inputs match the passed master control. One authorized same-head job retry passed all 328 files / 6,927 tests (4 skipped); the exact previously failed case passed in 665ms ([retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42737704110/job/129576420893)). No timeout, assertion or source change was made for the retry. ```sh node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs --skip-rust-debug pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps node --import ./cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs packages/db/src/test-postgres-command.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/native-harness-filesystem-independence.integration.test.ts -t "reproves stale native facts|retains stale native proof|guards stale native reproof|invalidates a published receipt after changed|actual physical-finalization lock|refreshes stale WEB facts|refuses a WEB facts refresh|retains or refuses the existing receipt when an earlier capture finishes late" pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit ``` ## Risks - Old receipt schemas and immutable bindings remain required. Full fresh proof carries compatible saved receipts forward; unknown fields or changed evidence refuse refresh and preserve the old receipt. - Full native preservation still requires canonical destroyed-provider receipts. The change retains the existing source capability, cancellation, finalizer and publication checks. - Only proof metadata changes. No provider operation, archive replacement, hosted recovery or deployment was performed for this PR. Live qualification remains with the operator after delivery. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## 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