mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
master
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
c46e41e81c |
fix(heartbeat): validate native MCP gateway ownership (#14914)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents and govern their tool access. > - Native runs receive an immutable MCP tool assignment for one agent. > - The gateway must enforce that owner when it authenticates a run token. > - Older gateway rows stored the owner only in metadata. > - This change validates the gateway and profile, binds new rows, and repairs valid older rows on reuse. > - It also delivers each native assignment once. > - Other agents cannot use the assignment, and explicit shared gateways keep their configured scope. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Builds on #14012 by @busla (Jón Levy). That PR adds agent binding and seven regressions. This PR carries that fix onto current master and adds legacy authentication, profile validation, and duplicate-delivery coverage. Related: #14864 improves discovery memory use. **What happened?** Native gateway creation stored an owner in metadata but left `agentId` null. Authentication could therefore accept another agent's run token. Managed discovery could also deliver historical native assignments again. **Expected behavior** A native assignment accepts only its owner's run token. The gateway and profile must refer to the same immutable assignment. The current assignment enters the run configuration once. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the database fixtures in `heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts` on the baseline. 2. Create a native assignment and inspect its stored gateway owner. 3. Authenticate with another agent's run token, then inspect legacy reuse and managed delivery. 4. The baseline fails six ownership and delivery cases. The fix passes all twelve cases. **Paperclip version or commit** The red baseline is `f2e0f1963`. This PR is based on `cad26c6bf`, which includes the merged discovery fix. **Deployment mode** Native Paperclip Runner execution and managed Codex MCP delivery. Reproduction uses isolated database and HTTP fixtures. ## What Changed - Store the agent owner and agent context on new native gateways. - Validate profile and gateway assignment metadata before reuse or token creation. - Bind valid legacy rows with a company-scoped, null-owner update and validate the result. - Reject mismatched run tokens before legacy repair. - Identify native assignments by gateway metadata, the reserved profile key, or profile source. Reject missing or malformed provenance, including JSON null. - Exclude historical native assignments from managed gateway delivery. Keep their rows for existing runs. - Add twelve database and HTTP regressions and document the runtime contract. ## Verification - Red baseline: six regressions fail and four controls pass before the initial fix. Two additional regressions reproduce metadata-loss admission and a JSON-null TypeError before the review fix. - All twelve ownership regressions pass on the final code, including owner admission, cross-agent rejection, metadata loss, JSON-null HTTP 401, and explicit shared-gateway admission. Policy, listing-memory, and discovery HTTP coverage also passes. - Full workspace typecheck and build pass locally. Server typecheck and compilation pass again after the review fix. The final ownership and grant patches pass 42 combined database and HTTP regressions. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37011383657) passes for `626a08ae66361cf586105877e24d806b1a7a9c20`: all 54 checks succeed; two optional Storybook checks skip. This includes full typecheck, build, all test shards, all eight E2E shards, runner verification, and the canary dry run. - Greptile scores that exact head 5/5. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks Invalid historical native gateway or profile metadata now rejects authentication. Valid unbound rows are repaired only when their owner reuses the assignment. Conflicting owners are never overwritten. Historical rows are retained for existing runs. Explicit shared gateways use ordinary profiles and keep their configured scopes. The reserved native profile namespace remains agent-owned even when gateway metadata is cleared. No schema or dependency changes are included. ## Model Used Original fix and seven regressions in #14012: Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5, `claude-opus-5-5`, 1M context, as reported by @busla. Extensions and verification: OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and tests. This session does not expose the exact serving model identifier or context window. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
1ab159d3a7 |
feat(apps): consolidate connector management (#12684)
Completes the post-managed-OAuth connector lifecycle, Paperclip Cloud provisioning defaults, governed test flows, and consolidated Apps UI.\n\nCo-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> |