6 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	9c442cf48e	feat(connections): deploy and configure Supabase and Vercel (#17217) ... Add governed Supabase and Vercel deployment/configuration connectors with vaulted credentials, agent access policies, approvals, audit, and bounded provider operations. Deliver reviewed REST actions to native agents and guard Vercel preview intent on empty projects. Preserve secret-safe request identity and durable retry behavior. Verified by current-head CI, fresh Greptile 5/5 review, and real-agent deployment/configuration walkthroughs on disposable provider resources. Test resources and temporary provider tokens were removed after verification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-23 11:37:29 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	30b753f614	perf(budgets): scope accounting and deliver enforcement asynchronously (#17046) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their paid work. > - Budgets must prevent new work and stop reported overruns. > - Cost settlement also ran serial lifecycle reconciliation for every eligible company agent. > - That made request latency grow with unrelated idle agents and delayed results on stop delivery. > - This change separates atomic admission and accounting from durable asynchronous enforcement. > - Scoped live usage detects overruns without writing provisional ledger charges. > - The result is constant query scope for ordinary settlement and recoverable stop delivery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Settlement and budget checks entered company-wide lifecycle reconciliation. A company with 1,000 unrelated idle agents performed 1,001 accounting transactions for one ordinary cost evaluation. User requests could also wait for provider termination. Running usage checkpoints did not enforce reported monetary exposure. **Expected behavior** Keep the final reservation gate authoritative. Commit charges, scope blocks, and enforcement intent before returning. Deliver stop requests after commit. Read only applicable policies and execution scopes for ordinary charges. Stop long-running work when supported reported or priced usage establishes an overrun. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a disposable company with one company budget and idle agents. 2. Evaluate a charge below the budget with 0, 17, and 1,000 unrelated idle agents. 3. Compare query counts, company accounting transactions, and duration. 4. Use the controlled partial-usage and delayed-stop fixtures to check enforcement and request responsiveness. **Paperclip version or commit** The measured baseline is `6c9b87d0922f1ebfc43e8b0c36889ac5ba7b9837` from `master`. Related public work: Refs #16976, #2006, #3539, #13763, #14296, #16853, #13075. These cover the affected service charge, cancellation, and accounting paths. This change removes their shared reconciliation overhead. ## What Changed - Batch applicable policy exposure under the existing company accounting lock. Preserve exact fractional money and zero-reservation dispatch fences. - Commit a durable final budget dispatch claim before provider I/O. Retain a separate final issue/run ownership transaction through synchronous handoff, without holding the company accounting lock or awaiting provider work. Preserve native recovery lease checks and duplicate handoff fencing. Browser handoff rechecks current policy; it reuses a consumed rate slot only for the identical policy generation. - Separate ledger spend, live observed spend, and effective held capacity. Use the maximum of reservation and live observation for each unfinished operation. - Deliver budget cancellation through the existing coordinator. Revalidate generations and persist queued/running stop fences before external termination. Bound stop concurrency to four. - Apply agent holds only to the affected agent. Project budgets leave other projects running. Project real company transitions in bounded lifecycle batches. - Replace periodic broad reconciliation with durable pending work, startup repair, receipt replay, and concrete retry/window deadlines. Retain drain and idle-safety checks. - Enforce accepted cumulative usage checkpoints without provisional charges. Final accounting atomically replaces live exposure and settles reservations. - Add operator-gated budget spans, regression coverage, map updates, and a real-PostgreSQL comparison harness. No schema or first-party telemetry change. ## Verification - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes on the final ownership fix, rebased onto `bbcf5dfe98`. Production `pnpm build` passes on final head `4c5f4de8b1`. Map, module-boundary, token, and Storybook catalog checks pass. - Focused real-PostgreSQL coverage includes the 292-case rebased accounting/dispatch run, 63 browser cases, 52 run-control/cancellation cases, 42 policy-generation cases, 77 lifecycle/commentary cases, and the exact Muse confirmation regression. Native executor unit coverage passes all 768 cases. Final ownership coverage passes: 74 adapter/use-case cases, nine public regression cases, and the additional deleted-project race. These exercise competing ownership, budget changes and charges between phases, zero/nonzero duplicate claims, rollback, recovery contention, read-only capacity rechecks, and controlled HTTP startup after commit. Another 74 pure/startup/tracing cases pass. The complete CI matrix and both 5/5 reviews passed on `1ac9b58`; its external security scan identified a stale-owner handoff race. The final fix restores synchronous issue/run ownership fencing after the accounting transaction commits. Final head `8e84f55ce8` has fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero new comments, Paperclip review 5/5, and a passing security scan. The complete latest-head [CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39535189808) passes, including budget, browser, Runner, build, and canary jobs. The unchanged Runner close fixture passed on its sole same-head job retry. - Broad local `pnpm test:run` invocations were stopped before required source updates (rebase and review fixes). They are not claimed as full passes. Final full-suite coverage comes from the complete latest-head CI matrix; local focused coverage and the incomplete broad invocations are reported separately. - Reproduce performance with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-budget-enforcement.ts --baseline-ref=6c9b87d0922f1ebfc43e8b0c36889ac5ba7b9837`; repeat with `--reverse`. The harness uses disposable real PostgreSQL, 20 warm samples per variant/count, and records raw timings, SQL/lock counts, agent reads, unchanged agent state, and query plans. Final production-source measurement revision: `eff713a4f72c7f4b7a4002a701cb481d4bfccd95`; the extended harness is committed in `4c5f4de8b1`. | Unrelated idle agents | Baseline median / p95 | New median / p95 | Baseline SQL / locks | New SQL / locks | New agent reads | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | 0 | 1.80 / 2.33 ms | 2.99 / 3.88 ms | 5 / 1 | 7 / 1 | 0 | | 17 | 15.53 / 19.55 ms | 2.24 / 2.60 ms | 90 / 18 | 7 / 1 | 0 | | 1,000 | 978.35 / 1,790.43 ms | 2.16 / 2.52 ms | 5,005 / 1,001 | 7 / 1 | 0 | - These measurements use local PostgreSQL 18.1 and Node 26.4.0 arm64. They isolate the cost-evaluation core and complete admission path, without hosted-region or provider latency. Prior-revision reversed-order controls also preserved the constant query counts; the final measurements above use the final production source. - Complete reserve → final ownership gate → immediate offline provider result is measured separately, with one responsible agent and one active operation at each unrelated-agent count. Admission p95 baseline/new: 0 agents **11.54 / 29.77 ms**; 17 agents **9.31 / 27.62 ms**; 1,000 agents **24.51 / 74.05 ms**. Baseline admission was already scoped; the stronger final fence adds bounded overhead. New counts stay constant at 53 Drizzle statements, three transactions, two company-accounting locks, and five agent-reading statements bound to the responsible agent. Zero unrelated-agent reads, exactly one provider callback per sample, and no leftover runs or holds. All admission scenarios stay below 250 ms. No external provider calls are included. - The partial-usage/delayed-termination fixture passed 20/20: receipt persistence p95 13 ms, receipt return to observed durable Stop fence p95 28 ms, complete receipt-start-to-fence p95 50 ms, unrelated database request p95 1 ms while termination was blocked. After releasing the controlled termination fixture, acknowledgement p95 was 14 ms. These are separately measured phases; fixture acknowledgement is not live-provider termination latency. - Models and provider deadlines are unchanged. No deployment, live inference, or staging acceptance is claimed. A quiet 30-minute follow-up waits for the merged revision on staging, then repeats classifier and controlled budget-stop acceptance in staging, recording hosted bookkeeping, queue delay, and actual provider acknowledgement separately. - Development failures retained: finalizer notification regressions (fixed; 27/27 affected cases passed), invalid browser admission fixture assumptions (fixed; browser coverage now passes 63/63), and first-head lifecycle/dispatch CI regressions (reproduced and repaired). A prior-head Cases E2E test hit its unchanged announcement-dismiss handler race while opening a filter; the same journey passed on `1ac9b58`. The external security review then found a stale-owner race between accounting commit and provider entry; final verification covers a competing run in that gap while retaining provider I/O outside the accounting lock. Early PostgreSQL startup attempts hit local semaphore pressure; serial reruns succeeded. The final-head Runner lane had one failure among 1,823 tests: the unchanged `timeout-attachment` fixture failed at its first process close after 6.28 seconds. The sole same-head job retry passed all 1,819 active tests (four skipped), including that fixture in 1.85 seconds. Three isolated local probes could not run correctly because the Rust fake-provider fixture binary was absent; cleanup masked the original startup failure. CI builds that fixture through its normal lane. These probes are inconclusive and are not counted as passes. ## Risks - This changes accounting, lifecycle, and cancellation ordering. Durable generations, source/sequence checks, ownership leases, and company locking remain required for correctness. - Provider stop acknowledgement can be slow or fail. Stop intent remains pending until existing termination proof succeeds; cancelled row status alone does not acknowledge delivery. - Mid-run limits depend on provider usage reports or supported price calculations. Providers that report only at completion cannot provide exact mid-call detection. - Signals are process-local wake hints for the supported single-active-writer model. Durable state and startup recovery remain authoritative. - There are no migrations, new queue tables, or cached balances. Repeat the classifier and controlled budget-stop acceptance after normal rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and parallel coding agents. The host does not expose the exact backend model revision or context-window size, so those values are not asserted. ## 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>	2026-10-21 07:23:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dabb8c5daf	test: remove repeated setup and strengthen regression proof (#16022) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its tests protect company boundaries, approvals, durable tasks, credentials and the board UI. > - Several owner suites repeat large database fixtures and render frames. > - Some tests repeat stronger proof or pass when the behavior they describe is broken. > - This pull request shares exact setup, removes proven duplicate cases and repairs weak observations. > - It preserves distinct security, lifecycle, concurrency and user-facing contracts. > - The benefit is 5,027 fewer test lines and stronger regression checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15978. This continues the merged test-audit cleanup in [PR #15978](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15978), which removed 11,976 test/support lines. The savings in this pull request are additional. Related open work: [PR #13460](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13460) changes legacy OAuth parent/version lock ordering. This pull request retains those production paths and the existing lock-order test. Its secrets changes compact fixtures and repair the two AWS wrapper exclusion observations. Scoped title searches found no open duplicate audit or fixture-consolidation PR and no matching audit issue. The problem is described here using the enhancement template. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The maintenance and regression value of the existing server, UI, CLI, shared and wiki-plugin test suites. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting test code. Two UI modules also lose unused test inspection exports. **Current behavior** Owner tests repeat database rows, service inputs, HTTP setup and render frames. Some cases repeat stronger assertions. Two AWS lock tests record only cleanup events, so an AWS provider write can happen inside the held lock without failing those observations. Several other negative tests accept or do not observe the wrong result. Worktree fixtures also use a temporary path alias that conflicts with the existing canonical-path checks on macOS. **Proposed behavior** Use small local helpers that preserve exact inputs, fresh allocations, callbacks, query order and await positions. Remove only cases with named stronger keepers. Tighten negative assertions and observe actual AWS provider entry while a confirmed lock holder remains parked. Resolve temporary fixture roots to their canonical paths. **Reason and benefit** Remove 5,027 net test lines and 15 redundant registered executions. Remove 11 lines of unused UI inspection exports. Keep every distinct company, actor, approval, credential, persistence, stale-write and concurrency contract. No wall-time speedup is claimed for setup compaction. **Breaking changes** None for application behavior, APIs or stored data. The removed exports expose private UI test state and have no remaining callers. ## What Changed - Consolidate repeated runtime, workspace, portability, route, tool-access, policy, gateway and state-service fixtures. - Share repeated UI render frames and CLI/wiki-plugin setup while retaining the original actions and expected results. - Remove 15 repeated case executions only where the audit records an exact stronger keeper. - Repair weak HTTP/UI negative assertions and two AWS account-home lock observations. Keep the existing durable results and cleanup behavior. - Remove the unused `__inflightGetCount` and `__secondTickInternals` inspection exports. Keep observable request coalescing and ticker lifecycle checks. - Canonicalize temporary worktree fixture paths without weakening production path checks. - Record the owner decisions, savings, independent preservation reviews and validation in [the dated audit report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-rounds.md) and [the compact control evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-controls.json). ## Verification - Complete owner and retained-sibling baselines passed before each audit cutover. Independent reviewers checked the full original tests, actual helper bodies, exact inputs, receipt provenance, async order, fresh allocations and case registrations. - All 14 UI/route/wiki mutations failed at their intended assertions: ten UI/API/ticker controls, one route control and three wiki persistence/receipt controls. Each mutated production source was restored to its exact original bytes. - Both old AWS lock tests passed with their respective AWS-only lock bypass. Both repaired tests failed at the intended assertions with the same bypasses. These give 16 intended failures and two passing weak controls across 18 executions. Each source was restored exactly. - Final complete state-owner/sibling run: 329/329 passed at code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`. - Final `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates` and `pnpm build`: passed at the same code revision. - Delivery head `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` includes the evidence commit and master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded`. All 27 audited test files and both application files match the locally verified code revision byte-for-byte. Current-head CI validates the integrated branch, including the incoming master changes. - All eight production-owner SHA guards for the 16 deliberate failing mutation controls still match the integrated delivery checkout. The mutation receipts therefore apply to those current owners. - Full default `pnpm test:run`: **failed** with exit 1 at frozen code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`; HEAD and tracked source bytes remained unchanged. The first general-server group reported 878 passing files, four failing files and six skipped files; 17,846 passing cases, 24 failing cases and 105 skipped cases. Later groups did not run. Failures were `http-log-redaction` (socket hangup), `public-mcp` (initial 15-second timeout followed by hosted token “Refresh before subscribing” failures), `remove-test-home` (macOS `ENOTEMPTY` where permission errors were expected, plus cleanup failure), and `workspace-git-snapshot-streaming` (300-second timeout). All four failing test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP production owners are unchanged by this audit. Full local success is not claimed. - Focused complete-owner diagnosis at the same frozen revision: 149/152 passed, three failed, zero skipped. `public-mcp` passed 82/82 and `http-log-redaction` passed 66/66 unchanged. The two `remove-test-home` cases reproduced macOS `ENOTEMPTY` against an expected `EACCES`/`EPERM` contract; the 32 MiB workspace snapshot case reproduced its existing 300,000 ms timeout. HEAD and tracked files stayed clean. Exact blob comparison confirmed all four test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP owners match both inspected master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded` and the frozen local revision. The three remaining local failures are unresolved; no timeout, retry or assertion was weakened. - Current-head CI: [workflow 38299262149](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38299262149) has passed runner selection and created all downstream test/typecheck/build gates; those gates are queued, with no failures reported. Greptile completed successfully at `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` with [5/5 and zero comments](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16022#issuecomment-6131457592). All review threads are resolved or absent. This pull request will remain open after verification. Reviewers can reproduce the required workspace checks: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm check:token-gates pnpm test:run pnpm build ``` Browser suites were not run. Their sources and user journeys are unchanged by this audit. ## Risks - A fixture helper can hide a specialized input or change object freshness. Full-program expansion checks and independent reviews preserve the exact old inputs and execution order. - Removing duplicate proof can remove a distinct contract by mistake. The audit records the keeper for each deletion; all distinct security and lifecycle cases remain. - Concurrency checks can miss progress during a fixed delay. The AWS repairs record actual provider entry, confirm holder entry, use measured entry windows, require exact final event order and drain both operations in `finally`. - The full local default run failed. Focused diagnosis reproduced two macOS cleanup failures and one existing snapshot timeout in unchanged owners; these remain unresolved. Current-head CI is pending. No test deadline, retry policy, skip or CI shard was weakened to obtain a pass. > 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 with GPT-6, reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and delegated audit/review. The runtime does not expose the exact served model identifier or context-window size; those values are unavailable and are not inferred from the model catalog. ## 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-10-12 22:23:11 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	20ccf3f476	feat(apps): add connection grants and delegated identities (#12341) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries. > - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use case. > - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation. > - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their database contract. > - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add company and user connection grants. - Add delegated identity and membership rules. - Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts. - Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in the same layer that mounts it. - Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope. - The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential use. - Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code 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 linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7e00f67138	feat(connections): add v3 schema core (#9958) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems. > - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations. > - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific credential grants. > - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant and subject boundaries consistently. > - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly migrating the remote MCP transport name. > - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles, rules, or audit controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public issue was found. **Problem** Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology. **Proposed solution** Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants` table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name. **Related work** - Related foundation: #9534 - Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations) ## What Changed - Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts, validators, services, and UI fixtures. - Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company scoping, and uniqueness constraints. - Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage. - Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior. - Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries. - Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed. - Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary, policy, and security scans pass. - Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627` color literals outside this change. ## Risks - **Migration risk:** UID backfill and default-grant creation touch every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness, deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback coverage. - **Authorization risk:** Grant rows carry credential references. Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this design. - **Compatibility risk:** `remote_http` is renamed directly to `mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the same change. - **Future-phase risk:** Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities. > 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 CLI coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution, Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured reasoning. ## 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>	2026-07-21 15:16:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cfa5e0704e	feat(mcp) [split 3/8]: add tool access policy core (#9558) ... ## 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 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and authorization core > - 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: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server boundary. - Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - 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/02-schema-shared`. - 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: SecurityEngineer for authz, OAuth, secrets, and content guards; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - 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` - Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed ## Risks - Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated security review. - 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>	2026-07-14 14:22:39 -05:00