mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
ffcd113761
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators inspect tool execution, review pending actions and control local runtimes. > - These paths shared a large service with token exchange and app authorization. > - Runtime state and execution history need explicit owners and stable public responses. > - This pull request separates runtime controls, health summaries, activity reads and the review queue. > - The benefit is focused modules that preserve the current supervisor and approval behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #17157. Earlier stack: #17144 → #17146 → #17147 → #17155 → #17157 → this PR. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintenance of tool runtime administration and execution activity views. **Current behavior** The 16,100-line service contains runtime slot controls, health calculations, usage history, invocation decisions and action review queries. **Proposed behavior** Runtime modules own slot persistence, operator controls and health summaries. Activity modules own history, response projections and the review queue. The public service delegates to these owners. **Reason and benefit** The entry point falls to 14,877 lines, a reduction of 1,223 lines. The coordinator no longer needs execution-history joins or runtime alert calculations. ## What Changed - Extract five modules totaling 1,282 lines. The largest is 426 lines. - Pass the existing supervisor to slot controls. Pass the same live deployment options, clock and host getter to runtime health. - Keep activity reads scoped as before. Keep unsigned-request grace and invalid-signature cancellation in the review-queue owner. - Preserve public methods, response projections, query order and audit writes. ## Verification - The public service and unsigned review-queue tests pass before and after the move. The combined post-move run passes 469 cases with one database worker. - Existing cases exercise actual local stdio stop/restart, route permissions, stale-slot and audit-failure health, activity attribution, run decisions and unsigned pending requests. - Server TypeScript check, module-boundary gate and `git diff --check` pass. - Normalized syntax comparison finds all 256 pre-existing function/method bodies unchanged. - Full typecheck/build will run at the stack handoff. The earlier interrupted local full suite remains unverified; all current-head CI gates pass, with Greptile 5/5 and no open review threads. ## Risks - Creating another supervisor would split process ownership. The new module receives the same instance; it does not construct one. - Copying deployment settings could freeze live values. The health reader holds the existing options object and getter. - Review-queue reads can cancel invalid requests. Those writes and the unsigned-request grace period are preserved and covered by the existing regression test. - No schema, public API, authorization policy or background scheduling change is intended. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools and code execution. The exact serving model ID 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>