mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
ff53eb84db
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Restart recovery must decide when a dead process's in-progress record may be released > - About 31 sites decide "owner gone" today, with different rules for EPERM, PID reuse and other hosts (Phase 0 inventory, finding 1) > - The durable ownership plan (section A) asks for one owner stamp and one prover that returns `gone | alive | unprovable` > - This pull request adds that stamp and prover. Nothing calls it yet; the next PR uses it in a report-only reconciler > - The benefit is one tested definition of "owner gone" that later phases move each record kind onto ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831 (plan, section A and Phase 1). Refs #19846 (Phase 0 inventory). Refs #19848 (Track 1: 1 s start-time gap and EPERM as alive). Stacked on #19851. **Problem** Each subsystem proves "owner gone" with its own rules. Some accept a dead PID on another host as proof. None returns "unprovable". **Expected behavior** One prover with one set of rules. A different host and an expired fence alone are never proof. "Unprovable" never releases a record. **Impact** This is the primitive that Phase 1's report-only reconciler and Phase 2's migrations use. ## What Changed - New `server/src/services/owner-proof.ts`: - `OwnerStamp`: a local stamp (`host`, `processSpace`, `bootId`, `pid`, `processStartedAt`, `processGroupId`, `generation`, `scope`) or a remote stamp (`fenceToken`, `generation`, `scope`, `provider`). - `proveOwnerGone(stamp, …)` returns `{ verdict: "gone" | "alive" | "unprovable", reason }`. - Local rules: this boot is alive; the stamp must name this host and PID space (host, kernel boot, PID namespace); the PID must be dead or reused (start-time gap of at least 1 s, via Track 1's `processStartsDefinitelyDiffer`); EPERM is alive; the process group must be empty or led by a newer process. - Remote rules: a superseded fence token or generation is gone; a provider stop proof is gone; a held fence is alive; a matching fence that only expired is unprovable. Process liveness is never consulted for a remote owner. - `currentLocalOwnerStamp()` reads only cached identity, so writing a stamp adds no OS call to the turn path. - `controller-process-identity.ts` exports `observedProcessStartedAt` and `UNKNOWN_PROCESS_SPACE` for the prover. - New `owner-proof.test.ts`: the proof matrix (EPERM, ESRCH, PID reuse inside and at 1 s, unreadable start time, a different host, a different or unknown PID space, process groups, a held, superseded, expired or provider-proved remote fence). ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/services/owner-proof.test.ts` (in `server/`): 20 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server`: no errors. ## Risks - Low risk. No caller uses the prover yet, so no behavior changes. - Previous-release story (`rules/upgrade-safe-run-state.mdc`): no persisted shape changes. Stamps from older rows that lack fields return `unprovable` (`missing_identity`), which never releases a record. - Track 1 is still fixing proofs in place. The prover reuses Track 1's helpers (`processExists`, `processStartsDefinitelyDiffer`), so a later Track 1 rule change applies here too. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use and code execution. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>