mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
ffe5e9e2a8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people steer and recover AI-agent conversations. > - Recovery eligibility depends on retained cancellation receipts. > - Run presentation intentionally omits result JSON on SQL_ASCII databases and reduces oversized output. > - Retry and the saved-input sweep mistakenly used that presentation read for admission. > - The banner could offer Retry while the endpoint rejected the same stopped run. > - Read the narrow execution-evidence fields for internal admission and keep normal presentation unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15024 and #15015. Searched existing recovery and redaction PRs; no duplicate fix found. **What happened?** On a SQL_ASCII instance, a verified pre-dispatch review-wait cancellation offers Retry in the recovery notice. Clicking it returns an eligibility conflict, and a saved user message remains deferred. The notice reads the retained database receipt, but the endpoint and sweep read a presentation projection where `resultJson` is null. **Expected behavior** Retry and saved user input use the recorded execution evidence and ordinary admission gates, independent of presentation redaction. Public run reads retain their existing encoding and output-size protections. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Record a cancelled, unclaimed review-wait continuation and its recovery hold. 2. Use the SQL_ASCII presentation projection, where run result JSON is omitted. 3. Click Retry or save a new user message and let the recovery sweep inspect it. 4. Verify a fresh turn starts once, with no replay of consumed input. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `9ae3d8db3`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server with a SQL_ASCII database. ## What Changed - Add an explicit internal read of cancellation, startup, review-wait, tool-inventory, and Stop evidence; omit provider diagnostics. - Use that read in the Retry route, wakeup validation, and saved-input continuation checks. - Preserve the distinction between absent result JSON and an unrecognized stored result. - Cover the reproduced SQL_ASCII Retry and saved-input failures, retained public redaction, native Stop behavior, and excluded provider output. - Document the presentation and admission distinction. ## Verification - Red: four selected assertions fail before the fix, including the SQL_ASCII eligibility conflict and saved input remaining deferred. - Targeted green regressions and existing native Stop cases pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - All 626 affected recovery, continuation, and route tests pass, including 22 focused admission and native Stop cases. Current-head CI has 54 passing gates and 2 skipped optional Storybook checks. Greptile reviewed `9b94af91e295a4e8007dfc6bff6a8d532d945e36` at 5/5 with no findings or open review threads. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed; the complete suite runs in sharded CI. ## Risks Admission still checks recorded process and controller ownership, provider events, cleanup, company scope, user authority, pending decisions, and task holds. The evidence projection must retain every field used by these eligibility predicates; existing native Stop cases guard against dropping its acknowledgement receipt. No schema, dependency, UI, or public response change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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>