mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-09 06:15:21 +02:00
codex/plugin-task-execution
12
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
d9d2147171 |
fix(auth): keep Cloud tenants on the Cloud sign-in flow (#14407)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud owns human identity and passes a verified identity to each tenant. > - The tenant can report no session while the Cloud session is still valid. > - The access gate and direct `/auth` route then show the instance password form. > - This pull request sends those users through the configured Cloud entry endpoint. > - Cloud can renew the tenant session or show its login page, then return to the original task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Cloud tenant can display the self-hosted email/password form after an instance session check returns no session. This gives Cloud users the wrong login method. **Expected behavior** An active Cloud session renews tenant access automatically. A signed-out user signs in through Cloud. Staging and production use their own configured Cloud origins. Self-hosted instances keep their instance login form. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud tenant task or an `/auth?next=...` link. 2. Keep the Cloud session active but make the instance session check return 401. 3. Observe the instance password form instead of Cloud session recovery. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed authenticated instances. No database or server API changes. Searched related authentication PRs. Native self-hosted OIDC support in #10411 is a separate feature; this change uses the existing Cloud entry contract. ## What Changed - Wait for deployment metadata before showing an instance login form. - Use the health response's Cloud origin and stack slug for session recovery. - Preserve the tenant path, query, and fragment. Reject external and recursive login return targets. - Limit automatic recovery per tab. Show a manual Cloud retry after failed recovery. Show service failures as errors. - Keep self-hosted login and local trusted access. Add focused tests, browser regressions, deployment documentation, and an unavailable-state design example. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - UI typecheck and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed after the final UI edits. - All UI tests passed: 639 files, 6,777 tests. - 63 focused Vitest tests passed across Auth, CloudAccessGate, Cloud links, and recovery coordination. - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/cloud-auth.spec.ts`: 5 passed. The tests use the real tenant UI and database with a simulated Cloud HTTP endpoint. They cover both Cloud origins, direct auth/task links, no password-form flash, preserved URLs, reload, and self-hosted login. - Hands-on browser test used the real Cloud gateway and a fresh tenant build with disposable local data. Active Cloud session plus a forced missing instance session returned to the task. An expired tenant cookie also renewed automatically and returned to the task. Removing both sessions reached the real Cloud email/social login UI. Persistent failure stopped at the retry screen; retry succeeded after removing the injected fault. The fixture used a loopback transport adapter and a simulated signed-out OIDC issuer. No production session or deployment was changed. - The default local browser startup hit the host's embedded PostgreSQL resource limit. The passing run used a separate disposable database on the test PostgreSQL process. - The full local `pnpm test:run` sweep was stopped after about 31 minutes once CI completed the full suite. It had reported 33 failures in the unchanged runner API unit/integration files; both files pass in isolation (1,749 + 28 tests). The local sweep did not reach the later workspace/serialized groups. CI completed all of those groups successfully. - Greptile reviewed commit `d603fd4e39455de44da9dae81b72197096c0e1e8` at 5/5 with its only thread resolved. All CI gates are green on this commit, including all general/serialized server groups, workspace tests, Runner checks, typecheck, build, and all eight browser shards ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36446230697)). ## Risks - Recovery depends on valid Cloud origin and stack metadata. Incomplete metadata shows an unavailable message instead of a password form. - Browsers with session storage disabled use the manual Cloud link, since automatic retries cannot be bounded across documents. - The external identity provider's email/social login was not completed in this local test. Existing Cloud authentication owns that flow. - No migration, credential format, membership rule, or production deployment changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact served variant and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. ## 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 #` 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
|
9dd6526b47 |
fix(security): harden privileged server boundaries (#12776)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server controls secrets, host files, outbound requests, and workspace commands > - A red-team review found cases where restricted callers could cross these trust boundaries > - These cases could expose credentials or let untrusted input reach privileged resources > - This pull request applies least-privilege checks at each affected server boundary > - The benefit is safer agent execution without changing the private-instance bootstrap contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Several server paths used authorization, redaction, or content-delivery rules that were too broad. Restricted agent keys could obtain company-level operational data. Some adapter and instruction paths could reach server-owned network or file resources without the required owner approval. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must redact credential values, enforce restricted-key scopes, guard outbound network access, prevent same-origin script execution, and reserve host-level file and command controls for authorized operators. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an authenticated development instance at the parent commit. 2. Exercise the affected APIs with a restricted agent key or a non-instance-admin company user. 3. Observe that the parent commit returns privileged data or accepts a privileged operation. 4. Repeat on this branch and observe a redacted response, a safe download, or an HTTP 403 response. **Paperclip version or commit** The findings reproduce from commit `39898ab22` and are fixed by this pull request. **Deployment mode** Authenticated self-hosted server and local development modes. **Installation method** Built from source with pnpm. ## What Changed - Redact generic secret `value` and `token` fields recursively in structured logs. - Classify exact and separator-suffixed `KEY` environment names as secrets in company exports. - Limit restricted self-identity responses and protect company run, log, and secret catalog APIs. - Route HTTP adapter requests through DNS-pinned SSRF protection with exact private-origin allowlisting. - Download HTML, SVG, and other script-capable assets with `nosniff` and a sandbox CSP. - Require instance-admin access for external instruction roots and exports that read them. - Block agent-authenticated host command persistence across supported workspace runtime shapes. - Apply the central runtime-management decision before workspace command controls. - Keep the documented first-user instance-admin claim contract unchanged. - Add regression tests and server-owner configuration documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - The Node 24 remediation suite passes with 365 tests. It skips 25 environment-gated tests. - `pnpm build` passes under Node 24. - `git diff --check` passes. - The full local runner reaches known macOS-only general-server harness failures before the serialized route lane. The Linux PR matrix is the authoritative full-suite gate. ## Risks - Restricted agent keys now receive HTTP 403 responses from company-wide run, log, and secret catalog endpoints. - Script-capable assets now download instead of rendering inline. - External instruction roots now require instance-admin access. - Private HTTP adapter endpoints now require an exact origin in `PAPERCLIP_HTTP_ADAPTER_PRIVATE_ENDPOINT_ALLOWLIST`. - Public HTTP adapter endpoints remain enabled. Redirects and metadata or link-local targets remain blocked. - No database migration is required. > 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`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed. The model used tool-enabled reasoning, repository access, code execution, and test 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> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
0798c77fde |
Secure Cloud canonical runtime identity (#12766)
Accept and persist Cloud-signed canonical runtime identity before activation, then route absolute self-URLs through the durable runtime identity provider. Co-Authored-By: Codex <codex@openai.com> |
||
|
Melbin J Paulose
|
47bd4d4803 |
docs: point section 11 at the renamed implementation plan (#11677)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `doc/` tree is how a contributor learns the system
> - Section 11 of `doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md` is a map to the other
documents
> - One entry on that map points at a file that is not there
> - Commit `9c7d9ded1` moved every plan into `doc/plans/` with a date
prefix, and this link kept the old name
> - This pull request updates the link to the current file name
> - The benefit is that a reader who follows the map arrives at the plan
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No issue exists. The problem is below.
**Issue type**
Docs. A link points at a file name that changed.
**Where is the issue?**
`doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md`, line 176, in section 11 "Relationship to
Other Docs".
**What's wrong?**
The line reads:
```
- implementation plan: `doc/plans/deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md`
```
That file is not in the repository. Commit `9c7d9ded1` ("docs: organize
plans into doc/plans
with date prefixes") renamed it to
`doc/plans/2026-02-23-deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md`.
The renamed file is there today. The link text was not updated.
The other four entries in section 11 are correct. I checked each one:
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/CLI.md` and
`doc/spec/invite-flow.md`
all exist.
**Suggested fix**
Use the new file name in the link. That is what this pull request does.
## What Changed
- `doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md` line 176 now names
`doc/plans/2026-02-23-deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md`
## Verification
Run this command. It prints the file, so the new name is correct:
```
ls doc/plans/2026-02-23-deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md
```
Run this command. It prints nothing, so the old name is wrong:
```
ls doc/plans/deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md
```
## Risks
Low risk. The change is one file name in one line of documentation. No
code changes.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5`, 1M context window,
extended thinking, with tool
use and code execution.
The path was found by [docproof](https://github.com/melbinjp/docproof),
an open source
checker that compares what documentation claims against what the
repository contains. A
person then read the document, checked the rename in `git log`, and
confirmed the other four
links in the same section.
## 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
- [ ] 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
One box stays unticked and I would rather say so than tick it. I did not
run the test suite
locally, because the change is one line of prose and no test reads it.
The other two were unticked when this opened, because CI and Greptile
had not run yet. Both
have now. **29 checks pass and 2 report `skipping`** (Contributor trust,
Storybook visual
regression); none fail. Greptile returned **5/5** with no P2s: *"The
documentation-only change
appears safe to merge. The new path exists ... and replaces an obsolete
path that no longer
exists."*
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
fdb9a4880d |
fix(security): route paperclipai CLI guidance through safe npx form (CWE-78) (#11400)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip provides CLI commands and guidance for operators and agents > - The `pnpm paperclipai` script can pass argument values through a shell > - Shell re-parsing can execute command substitutions inside quoted values > - This pull request routes guidance through inert-argv `npx paperclipai` commands and adds regression coverage > - The benefit is safer operator guidance across documentation and runtime hints ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request fixes a command-injection-class defect in Paperclip CLI guidance. **What happened?** The `pnpm paperclipai <sub> --flag "$VALUE"` form can re-parse argument values through a shell. A command substitution inside a quoted value can execute on the host. **Expected behavior** Paperclip guidance must pass CLI values as inert argument values. Host-derived values must not appear in copyable commands. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a Paperclip guidance command that uses the `pnpm paperclipai` script. 2. Provide a quoted value that contains a command substitution. 3. Observe that the shell can evaluate the substitution before the CLI starts. 4. Compare the result with the `npx paperclipai` form. **Paperclip version or commit** `5670984b75d109950c968542a0111ebb6967f4da` **Deployment mode** All deployment modes that show or use the affected CLI guidance. **Installation method** Built from source and installed CLI guidance. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Both. **Additional context** The earlier merged PR [#11343](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11343) used the unsafe `pnpm exec paperclipai` form. This fresh PR replaces that guidance with the safe `npx paperclipai` form. ## What Changed - Standardize documentation and runtime hints on `npx paperclipai`. - Remove the broken `pnpm exec paperclipai` guidance. - Use a static `<host>` placeholder in private-hostname guidance. - Add regression tests for unsafe forms, continued lines, static hosts, and offline guidance. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...origin/fix/paperclipai-cli-npx-safe-invocation` passes. - The branch adds `server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts` and updates private-hostname tests. - CI must run the new tests, typecheck, lint, and build checks. - Local Vitest execution was not available because this worktree has no installed Vitest binary. ## Risks - The change affects operator and agent documentation text. - The runtime hints now show `<host>` instead of a request-derived host value. - No database schema or migration changes exist. - CI will detect any missed unsafe invocation or type error. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code-review assistance. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and PR preparation. ## 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] CI ran the test suites and they pass; local test execution was unavailable in this worktree - [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 addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3db2e6bdd2 |
feat(mcp) [split 8/8]: add e2e coverage and operator docs (#9563)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage, operator docs, evals, and release notes > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios, operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof before merge. - Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs` - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list` — 43 tests discovered - `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs 6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes) ## Risks - Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off execution. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8da50dbcf8 |
[codex] Add private browser first-admin claim flow (#6755)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any invite exists. > - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed. > - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly. > - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is. > - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across server, UI, docs, and regression coverage. > - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access. ## What Changed - Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments. - Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first behavior. - Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public, and signed-in access states. - Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path. - Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and health exposure reporting. - Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run` - QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict, public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and normal board/no-access flows. - GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927 as-is. ## Risks - The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression here could expose admin creation on public deployments. - Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and installs that already have an active invite. - The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite collisions under root workspace mode. > 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`. > > ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for that QA run is not exposed in this PR context. ## 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 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
b9a80dcf22 |
feat: implement multi-user access and invite flows (#3784)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - V1 needs to stay local-first while also supporting shared, authenticated deployments. > - Human operators need real identities, company membership, invite flows, profile surfaces, and company-scoped access controls. > - Agents and operators also need the existing issue, inbox, workspace, approval, and plugin flows to keep working under those authenticated boundaries. > - This branch accumulated the multi-user implementation, follow-up QA fixes, workspace/runtime refinements, invite UX improvements, release-branch conflict resolution, and review hardening. > - This pull request consolidates that branch onto the current `master` branch as a single reviewable PR. > - The benefit is a complete multi-user implementation path with tests and docs carried forward without dropping existing branch work. ## What Changed - Added authenticated human-user access surfaces: auth/session routes, company user directory, profile settings, company access/member management, join requests, and invite management. - Added invite creation, invite landing, onboarding, logo/branding, invite grants, deduped join requests, and authenticated multi-user E2E coverage. - Tightened company-scoped and instance-admin authorization across board, plugin, adapter, access, issue, and workspace routes. - Added profile-image URL validation hardening, avatar preservation on name-only profile updates, and join-request uniqueness migration cleanup for pending human requests. - Added an atomic member role/status/grants update path so Company Access saves no longer leave partially updated permissions. - Improved issue chat, inbox, assignee identity rendering, sidebar/account/company navigation, workspace routing, and execution workspace reuse behavior for multi-user operation. - Added and updated server/UI tests covering auth, invites, membership, issue workspace inheritance, plugin authz, inbox/chat behavior, and multi-user flows. - Merged current `public-gh/master` into this branch, resolved all conflicts, and verified no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is included in this PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/access-validators.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/auth-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm db:generate` - `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list` - Confirmed branch has no uncommitted changes and is `0` commits behind `public-gh/master` before PR creation. - Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is staged or present in the PR diff. ## Risks - High review surface area: this PR contains the accumulated multi-user branch plus follow-up fixes, so reviewers should focus especially on company-boundary enforcement and authenticated-vs-local deployment behavior. - UI behavior changed across invites, inbox, issue chat, access settings, and sidebar navigation; no browser screenshots are included in this branch-consolidation PR. - Plugin install, upgrade, and lifecycle/config mutations now require instance-admin access, which is intentional but may change expectations for non-admin board users. - A join-request dedupe migration rejects duplicate pending human requests before creating unique indexes; deployments with unusual historical duplicates should review the migration behavior. - Company member role/status/grant saves now use a new combined endpoint; older separate endpoints remain for compatibility. - Full production build was not run locally in this heartbeat; CI should cover the full matrix. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, CLI/tool-use environment. Exact deployed model identifier and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Note on screenshots: this is a branch-consolidation PR for an already-developed multi-user branch, and no browser screenshots were captured during this heartbeat. --------- Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
2a84e53c1b |
Introduce bind presets for deployment setup
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
f60c1001ec |
refactor: rename packages to @paperclipai and CLI binary to paperclipai
Rename all workspace packages from @paperclip/* to @paperclipai/* and the CLI binary from `paperclip` to `paperclipai` in preparation for npm publishing. Bump CLI version to 0.1.0 and add package metadata (description, keywords, license, repository, files). Update all imports, documentation, user-facing messages, and tests accordingly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
390e4dd839 |
feat: add board-claim flow for local_trusted -> authenticated migration
One-time high-entropy claim URL printed at startup when the only instance admin is local-board. Signed-in user claims ownership, gets promoted to instance_admin, and receives active memberships across all existing companies. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
21c506dcae |
docs: add deployment modes documentation and update plans
Add DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md with canonical mode taxonomy. Update CLI.md, DEVELOPING.md, PRODUCT.md, and SPEC-implementation.md with local_trusted/ authenticated nomenclature. Revise humans-and-permissions plan with Better Auth choice, bootstrap flow, unified invite semantics, and expanded criteria. Add implementation guide and additional plan documents for cursor cloud adapter and deployment auth mode consolidation. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |