mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-14 17:40:37 +02:00
codex/codex-runner-default
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
c7f4b74111 |
fix: isolate fresh task sources from restricted project workspaces (#16095)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task must have an isolated workspace that its agent can read. > - Older project checkouts can contain worktrees for restricted tasks. > - The source access check correctly rejects these shared checkouts. > - A fresh task then fails even when its agent can clone the project remote. > - This pull request gives fresh default tasks a separate clone of the same remote. > - The task can start while the restricted task files remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Fresh tasks fail with `Task workspace access is no longer available` when their default project checkout contains a restricted task worktree. The caller has access to the new task and its remote repository. The shared local Git source is unsafe to copy. **Expected behavior** Use a separate clone of the same authorized remote for a fresh default task. Keep source access checks and responsible-user Git credentials in force. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put a restricted task worktree inside a project checkout. 2. Assign a new default task to an agent that cannot read the restricted task. 3. Start the new task. The current source check fails before workspace creation. 4. With this fix, the task uses a separate remote source. The restricted files are absent. Later runs reuse the same owned source. Related work: Refs #15749, Refs #15528. This change keeps their source retention and workspace ownership checks. ## What Changed - Add a remote source path scoped to the company and task. - Clone through the run’s Git connection after the shared source fails its access check. - Reject reused workspaces, explicit selections, pinned branches, local sources, credential-bearing URLs, and symlink paths. - Check source access again before publishing the workspace. - Resolve later runs from the verified recorded source. Ignore leftover clones that the saved workspace does not own. - Record provenance for new implicit Git defaults. Read the current task binding before fallback. Preserve explicit, inherited and ambiguous legacy checkout choices. - Keep the effective task strategy during startup validation of matching implicit defaults. Preserve the existing explicit-selection write check. - Add regression coverage and document the fallback. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. All upstream suites, classifications, source references and story IDs are preserved. Both fix branches combine cleanly in either merge order, with no catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally: 313 focused source-isolation, preparation, task-creation, binding and trust tests before the final startup fix. The final fix passes all 100 source-trust, task-binding and environment-selection tests. Earlier workspace-resolution and persisted-source suites also passed. - Real-Git regressions cover all three review findings. Reconstruction ignores an unrecorded clone and preserves unpublished commits/files. Explicit and parent-inherited checkout IDs without typed selections retain their denial and branch tips without cloning or acquiring an environment. A protected-project heartbeat completes and resumes using the task’s Git strategy with read access. Explicit selection still requires writes, and a mismatched default is rejected. - Passed: the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. The generated index counts match the merged catalog. The current upstream verification-route inventory remains unchanged. The catalog contains all 262 authored suites and 2,481 story IDs. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build after the final guard changes, on latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`. - Latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`: complete CI passed (54 successful checks, two intentional skips), including the full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards. Fresh Greptile Apex review is 5/5 on this same commit, with no unresolved findings or recommendations. The full local test command was attempted earlier without a complete aggregate result; the complete suite result is from CI. - Manual check: configure a shared project checkout with a restricted task worktree. Admit a fresh default task using the authorized remote. Confirm separate Git storage and no restricted local branch or file. Reuse, close and reopen the task workspace. Confirm that explicit, literal branch and low-trust selections retain the denied source. ## Risks - A clean remote clone excludes unpublished local work. The fallback applies only to fresh default tasks and rejects existing workspace or branch selections. - A private remote can fail to clone when the responsible user lacks Git credentials. The run then reports the failure; access checks are not bypassed. - Older untyped checkout bindings cannot prove default provenance. They keep the source denial instead of silently dropping unpublished work. - New implicit Git defaults use the existing workspace-intent contract. The source directory uses existing instance storage. No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, model ID `gpt-6`, through Codex. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, terminal tools, and test execution. The API session does not expose an exact 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fc3b15537b |
fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040)
Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f329b24ee1 |
feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749)
Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries.
Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |