mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-09 16:35:27 +02:00
codex/github-app-wizard-review
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
3a726e676f |
feat: enforce private task permissions across execution and data (#10633)
Enforce private task and project access across direct reads, search, execution, files, plugins, live delivery, and sharing mutations. Preserve downward-only sharing, current responsible-user authorization, and audited emergency access. Bind historical draft assets with migration 0314. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a65ca09508 |
fix(runner): settle accepted results after shutdown failures (#15217)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the tasks they perform. > - The native runner saves tool results and completion reports before it releases a session. > - Large project discovery responses can exceed the durable command limit. > - A shutdown failure can leave a saved answer waiting for workspace repair. > - Recovery reused the old assessment for a different status decision, which violated a database constraint. > - This pull request bounds discovery responses and lets recovery commit the saved result after workspace repair. > - The benefit is a task that reaches its correct final status without another provider turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run can save its final answer, fail during shutdown, and leave the task In Progress after workspace repair succeeds. Reconciliation tries to reuse the failed-workspace assessment for a new decision. The one-decision-per-assessment constraint rejects the write. Replaying the old decision can also retain a fresh coordinator lease. Separately, retained session cleanup only recognizes the old `adapter_failed` label. The project-list tool returns full project records, including large descriptions and workspace configuration. A large response exceeds the runner's durable command limit. The settlement diagnostic previously recorded only a failure flag. **Expected behavior** Project discovery stays within the command limit. Recovery finishes the saved result after workspace repair, releases its lease, and preserves the original error for inspection. It does not repeat provider work or relax session ownership checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Return large project records from `list_projects` and observe an oversized semantic result. 2. Persist an accepted native completion result, then record a shutdown failure. 3. Finalize with a failed workspace, repeat that attempt, then record successful workspace repair. 4. Reconcile the run. Before this fix, the issue stays In Progress. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `a386a599983519eb1d399f8b770bfccdb2a74762`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with Paperclip Runner. Related transport work: #12208 drains queued events; #12241 resumes interrupted semantic calls. This change addresses bounded project discovery and accepted-result finalization. ## What Changed - Read bounded project summary projections from the database and return at most 50 authorized summaries with a continuation cursor and explicit description truncation. Agent and run trust boundaries narrow the database candidates; project-specific policies still receive full authorization. Only visible projects determine continuations. The default project-list API remains unchanged. - Record bounded, content-free settlement failure causes for command limits, storage errors, and rejected dispatch. - Include workspace state in assessment identity. Preserve the initial assessment for interrupted finalization, and commit replacement assessment and decision references together. - Release the coordinator lease when an existing decision is replayed, without repeating its effects. - Clear stale errors when recovery succeeds and retain them in `recoveredExecutionFailure`. - Accept both current and legacy close-failure labels in the existing exact-state cleanup path. - Add regression tests and update the tool contracts and recovery documentation. ## Verification - Red: the new project paging, settlement diagnostic, current cleanup label, and repaired-workspace regressions failed on the original implementation. - Green: protocol/catalog/tool checks (117 tests), the full project-tool and finalizer suites (47 tests), cleanup ownership cases (70 tests), and cleanup sweep cases (4 tests) pass. Database-backed pagination covers large descriptions/configuration, complete enumeration, uppercase cursors, agent/run restrictions, project-policy scope contributions, and identical results/cursors when hidden projects are added. - The initial CI failures in interrupted Board waits, contended endpoint proof, and semantic schema validation were reproduced and fixed; all affected cases pass locally. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — started before the review corrections; it spanned several source revisions and was stopped after reporting old-behavior and timing failures. It is not claimed green. Fresh project and recovery suites pass; the recovery suite also passes all 25 cases with the broad runner’s isolated home/config. The Slack timing case passed in isolation. Latest-head CI is the authoritative complete test matrix. - Existing authorization suite — 66 tests passed. - Latest-head CI on `8e5763d915aa6f375bdab6601996899ea01496fc` — 55 checks passed, 4 intentionally skipped, no pending or failing checks. - Greptile — 5/5, zero unresolved threads on the same commit. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - `list_projects` now returns summaries. Callers must follow `nextCursor` and use the authorized project API for full records. Candidate narrowing is only an optimization: project policy and responsible-user authorization remain authoritative. - Assessment identity changes for workspace finalization. Existing evidence remains intact; no migration is needed. - Cleanup still requires matching identities, settled tool evidence, and verified process ownership. Unknown tool outcomes remain blocked from session reuse. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution, and GitHub tools. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## 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
|
4039d4f06b |
fix(auth): allow scoped low-trust work and owner-chat instruction edits (#14870)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents must work within their assigned scope. > - Task creation currently rejects these agents before checking assignment permission or scope. > - Persistent instruction saves also reject direct requests from authorized chat owners. > - This PR checks the requested action and its recorded authority instead of denying all such work. > - Agents can organize permitted work and follow their owner's instruction-edit requests while outside work stays restricted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Low-trust agents cannot create self-assigned tasks or subtasks, even within their allowed scope. An authorized user also cannot ask an agent in their own Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. Agent-folder collection can hide the permission rejection behind a generic save failure. **Expected behavior** Allow task creation when assignment permissions and project or root-task scope permit it. Allow instruction self-edits during authenticated owner-chat execution, subject to the user's current edit permission. Outside tasks, subtasks, connector messages, and peer agents do not inherit that instruction authority. Explain the actual denial when a save fails. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an active agent with `low_trust_review` and a project or root-task boundary. 2. Ask it to create an in-scope task assigned to itself, or a subtask of its own task. 3. As a user with permission to configure that agent, ask it in your Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. 4. Observe blanket permission denials rather than action-specific checks. **Paperclip version or commit** Rebased onto master at `8ec4b84e1`. This is a core authorization change, independent of adapter choice. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server. Regression coverage uses the server services, HTTP routes, native tool authority, and embedded PostgreSQL. Related work: #14775 adds human-directed task execution. #13599 concerns instruction-path configuration; this PR leaves that configuration restricted. #11988 proposes separate active-review instruction protection. #10693 reports unclear authorization denials on a different API surface. ## What Changed - Apply task-assignment checks to both HTTP creation routes and native task creation, including unassigned work. Preserve low-trust policy and source attribution on the created task and its initial plan. - Allow self-assigned decomposition within the permitted project or root-task tree. Resolve workspace-derived project scope before authorization, and reauthorize existing tasks before duplicate detection returns them. Keep cross-project and peer-assignment checks. - Derive instruction self-edit authority from the accepted run identity and authenticated owner-message wake. Recheck current permissions at save time. Bind retries to the same request and chat session. - Reject inherited instruction authority from outside tasks, subtasks, plugins, connectors, stale sessions, cancelled runs, and peer edits. - Surface permission errors in instruction and agent-folder save receipts. Tell chat agents to explain the rejected action and the specific restriction. - Update the low-trust policy and implementation documentation. ## Verification - All 297 tests in 11 focused server suites pass after the rebase. These cover owner-chat saves, private copies, warm agent directories, reset and retry boundaries, permission revocation, task creation routes, and native tool authority. - After review fixes, all 126 tests in the four affected authorization/chat suites pass. Workspace scope regressions and 146 existing creation/ownership/workspace-route tests also pass. - The final duplicate-task and CI fixes pass all 39 tests across chat-project tools, duplicate creation, environment-selection guards, and assignee-invokability routes. The duplicate-task test reproduced an unauthorized response before the fix and verifies denial plus permitted reuse afterward. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes after rebasing; `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passes after the review fixes. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes. - Final head `7e73270b86748792649e4ae6fbc6879f73b42b73`: all 54 checks passed, with two expected skips and no pending or failed checks. This includes builds, typechecking, the full test matrix, end-to-end tests, runner verification, the canary dry run, and security scans. - Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, with no unresolved review threads. This change has not been deployed to staging. ## Risks This changes authorization behavior. The instruction exception must not become an inherited task permission. The check uses server-owned execution records, requires the agent's own chat and instructions, and keeps normal protected-change and responsible-user checks. Saves fail closed when current provenance or permission is missing. Owner chat grants a turn-scoped capability; the server does not classify the message intent or require approval of the exact new file bytes. Prompt injection within an authorized owner-chat turn remains a model-level risk. This is the requested owner-chat trust boundary, without a new per-edit confirmation flow. No database migration or broad trust-preset change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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> |