The comment said every audit read keys on a running or an
authenticated run. That claim was false. claimQueuedRun cancels a
queued run when an active subtree pause hold holds the issue, and it
writes an activity log event for that cancelled run. The audit feed
reads that activity log and can show the cancelled run. State the
fallback order the audit feed uses when it finds no responsible user
on the cancelled run: issue, then agent API key, then company
default.
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
The review-participant recovery comment said the row holds a null
responsible user only while queued. It does not say claimQueuedRun
can cancel a queued row before it resolves that value, so a
cancelled row keeps a null value for good. It also said resolving
the value at this insert would add a throw inside the release
transaction. The immediate-recovery writer resolves its value the
same way, in the same transaction, so that was not the actual
reason. State the real one: claimQueuedRun already resolves and
writes a responsible user for every queued run when it claims one,
so this writer leaves that work to it.
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
The comment said no code reads responsibleUserId on a queued row. A
run-ledger projection does read it with no status filter, so a queued
recovery run can show a null responsible user in that display. The
projection makes no authorization decision, so the null value is still
safe to keep.
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Add a comment above the heartbeat_runs insert in
queueReviewParticipantRecoveryRun. It states that claimQueuedRun and
initializeRunIdentity set the value later, that no code reads it on a
queued row, and that resolving it here would add a throw inside the
release transaction that runs the review-recovery path.
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server uses a deferred wake queue to release work at the correct
time
> - The wake queue had repeated decisions, helpers, queries, and
recovery data
> - This repetition made the module harder to read and left a drain
invariant implicit
> - This pull request moves pure decisions into the policy layer and
simplifies the queue flow
> - The benefit is a smaller, clearer module with the same behavior and
direct test coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13136
**Problem:** The deferred wake queue carried repeated logic across the
application and database layers.
**Expected behavior:** The queue keeps the same wake, release, recovery,
and escalation behavior after the refactor.
**Solution:** Move pure decisions into the policy layer, share repeated
data and predicates, and state the drain invariant in the application
layer.
## What Changed
- Remove the unused database port method and carry the blocked release
notice kind as a typed field.
- Move four pre-drain decisions into pure policy functions with
table-driven tests.
- Resolve the responsible user once in the application layer.
- Use the canonical helper for agent invokability checks.
- Share string helpers and run predicates across the module.
- Split the deferred-wake decision flow and share recovery facts with a
discriminator.
- Bound the drain loop and throw when it processes a wake identifier
twice.
- Rename queue ports to describe their behavior.
- Share row-loading code between stranded-issue escalation adapters.
- Restore the interaction-continuation integration test case.
## Verification
- Run the three wake-queue module test files. They pass 61 cases
locally.
- Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. It passes locally.
- Run the `server/` type-check and confirm that no error names the
changed wake-queue module or `heartbeat.ts`.
- Run continuous integration and confirm that `promotes an interaction
continuation after removing a coalesced self-authored comment` passes.
## Risks
The change refactors queue control flow and database adapter boundaries.
The main risk is a behavior change in deferred wake release or recovery.
The new policy tests and the restored integration case cover these
paths. The local environment cannot run the integration test because the
same dependency failure occurs on the base branch.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, context window not exposed by the runtime, with
reasoning, 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
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The heartbeat service releases deferred issue wakes and promotes the
next run
> - The release logic sat in a large service function, which made its
decisions and database effects hard to test
> - A promotion race could reopen an issue without creating the promoted
run
> - Company checks did not protect every read and write, and some
readers used a second transaction connection
> - This pull request moves the release logic into a layered wake-queue
module and closes these race and company-scope defects
> - The benefit is clearer decisions, safer writes, and focused tests
while existing callers keep the same entry point
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #10195
## What Changed
- Move the release half of deferred issue execution from `heartbeat.ts`
into `server/src/modules/wake-queue/`.
- Add pure policy decisions with table-driven tests.
- Claim a wake before the reopen write and advance to the next wake when
the claim fails.
- Add company predicates to guarded reads and writes.
- Pass the transaction-scoped issue snapshot to reader ports.
- Keep `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` as the public wrapper.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`.
- Run `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` inside `server/` and compare the result
with the known baseline.
- Run the wake-queue unit and adapter tests in continuous integration.
- Check the promotion-claim ordering, guarded writes, transaction-scoped
reads, and cross-company outcomes.
- Search the pull request diff for internal issue identifiers.
## Risks
- The refactor changes the transaction path for deferred wake release.
- A stale or lost wake claim now skips that wake and continues with the
next queued wake.
- The public wrapper keeps its name and signature, which limits caller
risk.
- Continuous integration must confirm the full server test suite and
build.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model version not exposed, context
window not exposed, with shell, Git, and GitHub tool use.
## 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>
nickyleach
Nicky Leach