mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
0373f9f2611088fc019a4206bc68a4d052dfe9fe
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
582911ba74 |
fix(access): give Operators default company editing permissions (#15377)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human company members receive permission grants from their role preset. > - Human invitations use the Operator role by default. > - The old Operator preset only granted task assignment, so ordinary members could not edit agents or manage connections. > - This pull request gives Operators company editing and audit access while keeping join approval and member-permission management separate. > - Members can configure their agents and accounts without an Owner role. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The default permission grants for human Operators and the invitation role description. **Subsystem affected** server/ permission presets and invitation authorization, plus ui/ invitation and tool access gates. **Current behavior** Operators receive only `tasks:assign` as an explicit default grant. Agent configuration and managed account setup fail their permission checks. **Proposed behavior** Operators receive agent creation/configuration, skills, environments, invitations, task assignment, pipelines, connections, tool management/use, and audit grants. The preset excludes `joins:approve` and `users:manage_permissions`. Operators can invite Operators and Viewers. Inviting a role with either excluded power requires that power, so invitations cannot bypass the restriction. **Reason and benefit** Ordinary company members can edit company work and connect accounts through the existing routes. **Breaking changes** The Operator preset grants more permissions. The existing startup and Cloud sign-in seeding paths can insert these missing grants for existing Operators. They retain custom grant scopes. Explicit invitation grants still take precedence. Inviting Admins now requires join approval; inviting Owners also requires member-permission management. This PR adds no migration or new backfill path. Related: #5945 describes missing role grants in another membership entry point. This PR changes the preset and does not change that endpoint. ## What Changed - Expanded the Operator preset to 14 company editing, invitation, tool, and audit grants. - Kept join approval and member-permission management out of the preset. - Required those powers when an invitation's selected human role includes them, preventing Operators from delegating the excluded powers through Owner/Admin invitations. - Updated the invitation role copy and the product specifications. - Allowed active Operators (including legacy Member roles) through the invite shortcut and advanced tool/profile UI gates. Kept inactive memberships, Viewers, and other companies excluded; API grants remain authoritative. - Added tests for the default Operator grants, both excluded actions, agent editing, company boundaries, and invitation role authorization. - Simplified adapter-route test imports so authorization errors and the error handler use one module graph; retained the upstream mock-initialization fix. - Kept Owner/Admin/Viewer presets and explicit invitation grants unchanged. Added no EE code or database migration. ## Verification - Permission and invitation tests: 38 passed across access service, invitation defaults, and invitation creation routes. - UI access tests: 61 passed across invitation shortcuts, Operator tool/profile access, and invitation UI. - Adapter route tests: 15 passed after resolving the upstream test setup conflict. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed on the final branch. - The initial local `pnpm test:run` general-server batch reported three tool-access failures and eight upload-helper timeouts. Both complete affected suites passed in isolation on the final branch: 403 tests. The initial full local run was not green. - Both complete tool-access and adapter route suites also passed on an untouched snapshot of base `88ff98b83`: 387 tests. The earlier tool failures did not reproduce there. - [All CI gates passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37527422346) for `068be153b9c2a064f2aaccc0627fdf458e73747e`, including the previously failing serialized adapter lane, general tests, E2E, typecheck, build, Runner checks, and canary dry run. - Greptile scored that exact commit 5/5. Superagent passed. Both invitation review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Operators gain broad company editing and invitation access by design. - Existing default seeding can add the new missing grants during startup or Cloud sign-in. It does not replace existing scopes. - Company boundaries and the two excluded permission checks still apply. - An Admin without member-permission management can no longer invite an Owner. Operators retain invitation access for Operator/Viewer roles and agent-only invites. - This PR changes company permissions. Cloud workspace invitation rules remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Used repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. ## 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 a 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> |
||
|
scotttong
|
4d82f5eaea | copy: unify user-facing "company" wording to "organization" (#12243) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b18b0fc39b |
feat: refine app connections and legacy worktree startup (#11040)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Apps UI manages app discovery and app connections. > - The managed worktree runtime starts agent work in repository worktrees. > - The Apps routes do not match the main discovery flow, and the connections view lacks a delete action. > - Legacy managed worktrees can also start before their pending seed operation runs. > - This pull request makes app discovery the main Apps route and makes connection management explicit. > - It also seeds legacy managed worktrees before runtime startup and makes the CLI read the repository-local config. > - The benefit is a clearer Apps workflow and a safer managed-worktree startup path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the Apps navigation, app connection management, managed git-worktree startup, and CLI worktree selection. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. The change affects `ui/`, `server/`, `cli/`, and development documentation. **Current behavior** The `/apps` route opens the connections list while discovery uses a nested route. The connections list has no delete action. Some legacy managed worktrees can start runtime work before their pending seed operation runs. The CLI can also read an ambient Paperclip config instead of the repository-local config. **Proposed behavior** The `/apps` route opens Browse, and `/apps/connections` opens the connection list. Users can delete a connection after confirmation. Runtime startup seeds legacy managed worktrees when required. The CLI resolves the current worktree from the repository-local `.paperclip/config.json` file. **Reason and benefit** Users can discover apps from the canonical Apps route and can manage existing connections from a dedicated route. Legacy worktrees receive their required repository content before agent runtime starts. CLI worktree selection stays scoped to the current repository. **Breaking changes** The `/apps` and `/apps/browse` route behavior changes. Old Browse links redirect to `/apps`. The change does not modify an API schema or database schema. ## What Changed - Make Browse the canonical `/apps` page and move the connection list to `/apps/connections`. - Align Apps navigation, redirects, attention links, empty states, and connection actions with the new routes. - Add connection deletion with confirmation and clear failure feedback. - Seed legacy managed git worktrees before runtime startup when their seed status is pending. - Read the CLI worktree selection from the repository-local Paperclip config. - Update focused UI, server, CLI, and development documentation coverage. ## Verification - Ran 202 focused UI, server, and CLI tests. All tests passed. - Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed. - Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully. - Ran `pnpm test:run`. The server and UI stages passed 7,168 tests. The CLI stage found one environment-sensitive secrets test because this workspace injects static AWS credentials. The isolated CLI file passed all 8 tests after those injected variables were unset. - Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing color-token violations in the unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch. This pull request does not modify that file. - Ran focused regression coverage for repository-root CLI config resolution and connection deletion state. All tests and affected package typechecks passed. - Collected all 27 tests in the six changed Playwright specifications successfully. - GitHub Actions passed every latest-head CI gate, including all three e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Existing bookmarks for `/apps/browse` redirect to `/apps`. - Connection deletion changes visible connection state and requires user confirmation. - The legacy seed path runs only for managed git worktrees with pending seed state. Tests cover the startup condition. - The rebase preserves the target branch's direct OAuth policy for the Notion connection flow. > 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 the GPT-5 model family assisted this change. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a116713b9a |
feat(mcp) [split 6/8]: add Tools and Profiles UI foundation (#9561)
## 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 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared components, and Tools/Profile surfaces > - 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: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that compile independently before navigation exposes them. - Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - 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/05-runtime-integration`. - 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: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - 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` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests passed ## Risks - Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7 supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions. - 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. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
