From fb695f7ae6960b5548a629b0c4c7c745368f6c01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dotta <34892728+cryppadotta@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 13:55:22 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] fix(secrets): let an approved binding fill a blank agent config value (#20908) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can propose binding a company secret to another agent; a person approves it with "Create binding" on a chat card > - Approval refuses when the target config key already holds a different value, so it never overwrites a working credential > - An empty string or empty plain value also counted as "already exists" > - So an agent whose key was cleared could not be repaired through the governed binding card: approval returned 409 > - This pull request treats a blank value like an unset key; non-empty values still conflict > - The benefit is that the supported binding approval repairs a member with a blank credential ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20879 **What happened** In the `teams.configure-team` chat eval, the CEO proposed binding the company OpenRouter secret to the QA member as `env.OPENROUTER_API_KEY`. QA's saved value was an empty string. Approving that proposal fails with 409 "Agent config path already exists: env.OPENROUTER_API_KEY". **Expected behavior** Approval fills a blank value (empty string or empty plain value) with the secret reference. A non-empty value still blocks the approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save an agent with `adapterConfig.env.TOKEN = ""`. 2. Have an agent propose a binding of a company secret to that agent as `env.TOKEN`. 3. Approve the proposal as the board user. 4. The approval returns 409 and the binding is not created. ## What Changed - `secret-proposals.ts`: `applyBindingApproval` treats `undefined`, `""` and `{ type: "plain", value: "" }` as an unset key for both `env.` and other config paths. - `secret-proposals-routes.test.ts`: regression tests for an empty string and an empty plain value. The existing test that a non-empty value conflicts still passes. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts` (in `server/`): 49 passed. - Red check: without the service change, the two new tests fail. ## Risks - Low risk. Only a blank value changes behavior. A blank value carries no credential, so nothing working is replaced. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 --- .../__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts | 29 +++++++++++++++++++ server/src/services/secret-proposals.ts | 10 +++++-- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts b/server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts index 250132f6a46..1310dac8c9a 100644 --- a/server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts +++ b/server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts @@ -817,6 +817,35 @@ describeEmbeddedPostgres("secret proposal routes", () => { expect(history.filter(row => row.action === "secret.proposal.approved")).toHaveLength(2); }); + it.each([ + ["an empty string", ""], + ["an empty plain value", { type: "plain", value: "" }], + ])("fills a target key left as %s instead of refusing the approved binding", async (_label, blank) => { + const fixture = await seedRun(); + const agentApp = createAgentApp(fixture); + const boardApp = createBoardApp(fixture); + const secret = await request(agentApp).post("/api/agents/me/secret-proposals").send({ + kind: "secret", name: "dev/blank/token", value: "blank-fixture", justification: "Needed by task", + }); + const binding = await request(agentApp).post("/api/agents/me/secret-proposals").send({ + kind: "binding", secretProposalId: secret.body.id, configPath: "env.BLANK_TOKEN", justification: "Use saved secret", + }); + await db.update(agents).set({ adapterConfig: { env: { BLANK_TOKEN: blank, KEEP: "kept" } } }) + .where(eq(agents.id, fixture.agentId)); + + const approved = await request(boardApp) + .post(`/api/companies/${fixture.companyId}/secret-proposals/${binding.body.id}/approve`).send({ cascade: true }); + + expect(approved.status).toBe(200); + const [saved] = await db.select().from(companySecrets); + const env = ((await db.select().from(agents))[0].adapterConfig as { env: Record }).env; + expect(env.BLANK_TOKEN).toMatchObject({ type: "secret_ref", secretId: saved.id, version: "latest" }); + expect(JSON.stringify(env.KEEP)).toContain("kept"); + expect(await db.select().from(companySecretBindings)).toEqual([ + expect.objectContaining({ secretId: saved.id, targetId: fixture.agentId, configPath: "env.BLANK_TOKEN" }), + ]); + }); + it("approves a binding without cascade after its secret proposal was approved separately", async () => { const fixture = await seedRun(); const agentApp = createAgentApp(fixture); diff --git a/server/src/services/secret-proposals.ts b/server/src/services/secret-proposals.ts index 7de0ad8302e..5291561ef79 100644 --- a/server/src/services/secret-proposals.ts +++ b/server/src/services/secret-proposals.ts @@ -667,6 +667,12 @@ export function createSecretProposalsService(db: Db) { return updated; } + function isBlankConfigValue(value: unknown) { + if (value === undefined || value === "") return true; + const record = asRecord(value); + return record.type === "plain" && record.value === ""; + } + async function applyBindingApproval( txDb: Db, proposal: Proposal, @@ -701,13 +707,13 @@ export function createSecretProposalsService(db: Db) { if (namespace === "env") { const env = { ...asRecord(adapterConfig.env) }; const existing = env[key]; - if (existing !== undefined && JSON.stringify(existing) !== JSON.stringify(binding)) { + if (!isBlankConfigValue(existing) && JSON.stringify(existing) !== JSON.stringify(binding)) { throw conflict(`Agent config path already exists: ${proposal.configPath}`); } adapterConfig.env = { ...env, [key]: binding }; } else { const existing = adapterConfig[proposal.configPath]; - if (existing !== undefined && JSON.stringify(existing) !== JSON.stringify(binding)) { + if (!isBlankConfigValue(existing) && JSON.stringify(existing) !== JSON.stringify(binding)) { throw conflict(`Agent config path already exists: ${proposal.configPath}`); } adapterConfig[proposal.configPath] = binding;