ora-284-opencode-prompt-pad
1 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
ce7b49e4f1 |
[codex] Recover duplicate npm provenance canary publishes (#7839)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release workflow publishes canary npm packages on every push to `master` > - The failing canary job built successfully and published several packages before npm failed on `@paperclipai/mcp-server` > - The concrete failure was npm trusted-publishing provenance returning `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` because an equivalent Sigstore transparency-log entry already existed > - The package version was not visible on npm afterward, so the release script could not safely treat that error as success by itself > - This pull request adds a narrow recovery path for that npm provenance failure and keeps the existing registry verification as the final source of truth > - The benefit is that transient duplicate transparency-log failures do not break canary publication when a package can be republished without provenance or is already visible on npm ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug fix, no public GitHub issue found in duplicate search. - What happened: the Release workflow canary publish failed in `publish_canary` after npm returned `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` while publishing `@paperclipai/mcp-server@2026.609.0-canary.2`. - Expected behavior: canary publishing should either recover from npm's duplicate transparency-log failure when the package can still be published, or fail later in registry verification if the package never appears. - Steps to reproduce: inspect https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/27230012891/job/80411422155 from push `05cb18cf28074a6d1074c7575c5a44133146e368`. - Deployment mode: GitHub Actions Release workflow, npm trusted publishing. - Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `canary publish TLOG provenance release` or the failing run/job IDs. ## What Changed - Added `publish_package_to_npm` in `scripts/release-lib.sh` to wrap canary/stable package publishing. - Detects npm's duplicate Sigstore transparency-log error and checks whether the package version is already visible on npm. - Retries that exact package once with `--provenance=false` when npm hit the duplicate tlog error but the version is not visible yet. - Keeps unrelated publish failures as hard failures. - Added shell-helper tests with fake `pnpm` and `npm` commands, and included them in `pnpm test:release-registry`. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` - `pnpm test:release-registry` - Confirmed `pnpm publish --dry-run --no-git-checks --tag canary --access public --provenance=false` is accepted by pnpm 9.15.4. ## Risks - Low risk: the recovery only triggers when npm output contains both `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` and the duplicate transparency-log message. - Publishing without provenance is a fallback for canary continuity; if npm still does not expose the package, the existing registry verification step still fails the release. - The same helper is used by stable publishing too, but only for this exact npm provenance failure path. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. This is a release reliability bug fix. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; it does not duplicate planned core product work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-class model, tool-enabled local shell and GitHub CLI workflow, medium reasoning mode. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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 - [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> |