mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-02 02:07:25 +08:00
DottaandPaperclip
1778075155
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs report their task outcome through a structured finish result. > - A Board comment can permit a passive wait for the next response. > - That exception accepted reports that also admitted blocking unfinished work. > - The task then stayed In Progress without a runner, and recovery treated the wait as healthy. > - This pull request rejects that contradiction and uses the existing bounded continuation path. > - Real wait conditions and protection against obsolete requests remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent answered a status inquiry with `yielded` and `response_wake`. The same result listed blocking remaining work. The server accepted an indefinite wait without a question, approval, dependency, or pause. No further run was queued. **Expected behavior** Unfinished ordinary tasks must continue or have a recorded reason to wait. A status reply alone must not suspend the work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add a Board status inquiry to an unfinished assigned task. 2. Submit a successful native result with `yielded`, `response_wake`, and `remainingWork[].blocksCompletion: true`. 3. Leave the task without any real wait condition. 4. Observe that the old policy preserves In Progress with no continuation and suppresses recovery. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in the native status policy at `da887ea3e`. The branch is based on current master. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with the native Paperclip Runner. Related work: Refs #13338 (native response waits and recovery). Refs #12071 (separate legacy recovery and retry-state work). This change fixes the native unfinished-response-wait exception. ## What Changed - Reject contradictory finish reports while the provider can still correct them. - Route accepted unfinished response waits through the existing one-follow-up continuation budget. Repeated incomplete results create a visible recovery action. - Preserve questions, approvals, dependencies, pauses, conversation lifecycles, and superseded Board requests. - Recheck the current Board source in the decision transaction before queuing repair. - Let normal recovery reconsider old committed waits that report blocking work and still have a current source. - Add policy and database regression tests. Document the rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/status-arbiter.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism`: 346 tests passed, no skips. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`: passed. - Final head `8f0824d9bb4d631f2347f8afffe5fff6d574cb69`: all CI checks green (54 passed, 2 intentionally skipped), including all general tests, serialized server suites, runner tests, eight E2E shards, and the canary dry run. - Greptile: 5/5 on the final head, with no unresolved review threads. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` encountered an unrelated timing failure in `workspace-runtime.test.ts` (waiting for managed process-tree listeners). That test passed on an isolated rerun. The duplicate broad run was stopped; the complete CI suite passed on the final commit. - The transaction-race regression reproduced an obsolete continuation before the fix. All 12 source-change cases now pass, covering passive waits, corrective continuations, and exhausted-repair decisions. ## Risks - Agents that previously parked unfinished ordinary tasks must now continue or record an actual wait condition. - Old contradictory waits become eligible for normal recovery. Existing ownership, budget, pause, and supersession checks still apply. - The rule uses the structured blocking-work flag. It does not infer omitted work from prose. - No schema, dependency, or UI change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific deployment identifier 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>