mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 21:49:18 +01:00
0bb36b2c6b0f0217437e2b684bc89a64d0dae174
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
4b89eec644 |
fix: check selected workspace projects before offering retry (#17552)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery explains access failures before a user retries saved work. > - A task project and its selected workspace are separate settings. > - Moving a task can retain files from a project that the agent cannot access. > - The recovery notice checked only the task project or a past failure record. > - This pull request checks the projects required by the current workspace selection. > - The notice now offers Retry only after those project checks pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #17509. Related: #13230 concerns workspace binding consistency; this fix changes recovery presentation only. **What happened?** A task could show “Project access is ready” after moving to an allowed project while keeping a repository from a denied project. Typed failures could also keep the notice blocked after an authorized workspace replacement. **Expected behavior** Use the current task, workspace, and source project requirements. Honor a valid pending selection for the next admission. Keep stale, archived, or missing selections blocked without offering a project-permission repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose selected source belongs to a denied project. 2. Persist a project access failure. 3. Move the task to an allowed project without changing its selected files. 4. Reload the task. The notice must still explain the access block. 5. Select an allowed source through the workspace API. Reload the task. The notice must offer an explicit retry without starting work. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced after #17509 on master. The regression failed on the old projection and passed with this change. ## What Changed - Batch the current workspace project requirements for tasks with project access failures. - Check retained workspace and source projects, plus valid pending workspace selections. - Keep unknown historical denial projects unnamed. Do not expose unrelated project identifiers. - Keep unavailable workspace selections in the non-retryable failure state. Adding project permissions cannot repair these selections. - Add real database regressions for project moves, pending and applied repairs, stale revisions, archived pending selections, and foreign-company workspaces. - Update the recovery contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red-green regression with the real issue update service and execution access check. - Focused tests: 17 tests passed across `agent-project-access.test.ts` and `task-interruption-presentation.test.ts` after rebasing on current master. - Browser: the retained source stays blocked when the task project is allowed. Manage project access opens Permissions / Trust with Allowed projects and Add project. - The normal workspace API accepted an allowed pending selection. Returning to the task showed “Project access is ready” and Retry. Permissions and run count did not change. - Full repository typecheck and build passed before the final presentation adjustment. The final adjustment passed server typecheck, server build, and all 17 focused tests. The stale, archived, and foreign-workspace cases failed before this adjustment. Map and module-boundary checks passed. - Browser: an archived pending workspace shows the existing failure notice without Retry or a project-permission action. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after 15 native runtime database tests failed because embedded PostgreSQL could not initialize on this host. The focused database tests passed on isolated PostgreSQL 18 in Docker. All technical CI checks passed on `a6e9f977`. Fresh CI and review are required for the presentation adjustment. One Runner shard passed on its single rerun after a provider shutdown failure. A fresh local Runner build also passed that case and its reuse sibling. The prior Paperclip Review could not publish its assessment. Its saved presentation finding is addressed. Merge waits for a fresh published review and all checks on the current head. ## Risks - Presentation must follow workspace selection precedence. Tests cover retained bindings, valid pending changes, stale changes, and company isolation. - This adds at most three bounded reads for tasks with a project access failure. It adds no reads for this purpose on unaffected tasks. - Dispatch remains the authorization authority. This change does not grant access, move files, or start execution. No migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact serving model identifier and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d0c8f0b090 |
fix: explain project access denials and add an authorized repair path (#17509)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents may read only the projects in their allowed scope. > - Workspace setup correctly stops a task outside that scope. > - The task previously showed a generic failure, and agent settings did not offer an additive repair. > - This pull request explains the denial and lets authorized operators add projects while preserving other restrictions. > - The saved task then offers an explicit retry. Saving access does not start work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A project access denial appeared as an ordinary failed attempt. Operators could not add a second allowed project from agent settings. **Expected behavior** The task should explain the denied access and link to a working permission editor. The editor should preserve existing scope and restrictions, enforce operator authority, and retain drafts after a failed save. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose project is outside its allowed projects. 2. Let workspace setup deny project access. 3. Open the task, follow Manage project access, add the project, save, reload, and return to the task. 4. Confirm that the saved message remains and Retry task is a separate action. ## What Changed - Record a typed, non-retryable project denial before provider dispatch. Project denials do not enter automatic continuation or provider comment policy. - Project current and historical setup denials into a safe task notice. Keep unrelated failures, prior assignees, and approval/pause/budget gates separate. Recheck current project authority, including standard trust and root-issue grants. Accepted retries keep their working state. - Add board-only project-access reads and additive saves under the agent row lock. Enforce company scope, agent-management authority, pending-approval restrictions, and an audit record for new additions. - Add the production notice and searchable multi-project editor, including read-only, saving, cancellation, and failed-save states. Preserve the return-to-task query through canonical agent redirects. - Register board-only project-access routes in OpenAPI with a strict request schema. - Add production Storybook examples and API/persistence/concurrency regressions. Retain the approved design snapshot and update the behavior maps and implementation contract. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm build-storybook`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`. - Passed: 11 permission/projection tests and 30 run-completion tests against an isolated PostgreSQL database. These cover historical failures, concurrent additions, idempotent audit, preserved restrictions, foreign projects, read-only users, agent self-grants, and no automatic wakeup. - Passed: all 27 OpenAPI route tests, including route coverage and the new board-only request/response contract. - Browser: the real app displayed a historical denial; Manage project access opened the editor; saving retained the original project and survived reload; Return to task showed the ready notice. Saving created one audit event and zero runs. Explicit Retry returned 202 and reached the separate sandbox requirement, which remained enforced. No external provider was used. - All five production Storybook interaction checks pass: blocked task, save, cancellation, failed-save recovery, and read-only settings. These use fixture callbacks; durable authorization is covered separately above. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally but stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures caused by macOS semaphore exhaustion. Full-suite CI is required before merge. The separate UI suite passed all 9,095 tests. The 41 focused server regressions also passed after rebasing onto the latest master. A further 26 recovery-classification tests pass, including a red-to-green regression for automatic continuation after a project denial. ## Risks - No schema migration. The new endpoint only adds same-company project IDs and preserves the rest of the stored policy. - The historical notice recognizes one exact setup denial message. It does not display arbitrary run errors or disclose a different source project's identity. - The retry still passes all current admission and isolation checks. The notice does not promise that other execution requirements are satisfied. - Related open work: #13309 covers inherited secret restrictions; #11234 covers the broader repository catalog. This change does not replace either policy surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code execution and browser tools. The precise runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` 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 (focused server and full UI suites; full-suite infrastructure limit above) - [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> |
||
|
|
eece07a747 |
fix: repair the complete projectless repository setup chain (#17088)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents that do useful work. > - A projectless task can prepare an authorized repository in its retained workspace. > - Setup must hand work to a later run without user supervision. > - Real task attempts exposed gaps across admission, completion, and queue dispatch. > - A successful provider exit did not prove that the requested result was delivered. > - This PR repairs the existing lifecycle and checks the complete repository journey. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17047. This PR includes the preserved repairs from #17049, #17052, and #17082. **What happened?** A projectless native task could stop after requesting a repository. It could also continue through a timer or generic recovery path and lose its saved conversation lineage. The latest real Codex and Claude attempts delivered correct files, but the native continuation had been folded into the finishing predecessor. Both attempts remain failed measurements. **Expected behavior** Prepare the authorized repository, retain the original context, and dispatch one saved continuation after its predecessor finishes. Deliver the verified result in the originating conversation. Stop, current access, approval, and real blocker rules remain authoritative. **Steps to reproduce** Run the explicit automatic-repository suite for native Codex or Claude. Inspect the downloaded result, original context artifact, both committed run records, and continuation receipts. The suite uses one attempt and does not widen the default paid selection. ## What Changed - Resolve the retained local-board identity through current company membership and workspace authority. - Prepare required source dependencies before the isolated server imports native tool authority. - Explain the saved repository continuation in production completion tools. Correct only the exact pending-checkout blocker backed by a live receipt. Reject an unfinished response wait without a real response source. - Preserve the persisted task-session workspace source and its explicit absence of root repository context. Permit Git's exact no-repository result only for a validated plain task directory. Keep other Git errors and linked metadata strict. - Revalidate server-resolved same-agent continuation values against current ownership and the saved kind, summary, and key. Carry this shape through the internal bridge schema. Keep provider-facing schemas restrictive. - Preserve terminal result authority after a correlated successful controller response. Controller rejection creates no result authority. Bind the shared guidance and transport source in Copilot v55 and preserve historical identities. - Admit native status wakes with the existing no-coalescing contract. The existing deferred queue retains a distinct future dispatch instead of retagging the finishing run. - Recover deferred conversation lineage through the actual admitted dispatch. Accept a null outbox run binding only with matching decision, effect, dispatch actor, idempotency, task, company, agent, and requester evidence. Reject a conflicting nonnull binding. - Independently grade retained random context, actual checkout bytes and HEAD, accessible output, distinct continuation receipts, and admission order. ## Verification - Real database and Git regressions fail before their repairs. Prior focused cohorts cover local-board authority, optional repository waits, plain task directories, and first/reused workspace provenance. - The new valid decision/effect-backed assembled-heartbeat regression reproduces coalescing into its active predecessor before the queue repair. With the repair, it dispatches one successor after the predecessor finishes. Duplicate sweeps create no extra run. - The deferred-outbox conversation regression fails before its repair. The repaired test also rejects a conflicting predecessor binding. - The current queue, continuation, publication, cancellation, stale-admission, and domain cohort passes 344 checks across 11 suites. Server and Product E2E typechecks pass. The strengthened automatic-repository oracle passes 34 calibration checks. - Three omitted/null/resolved forms pass through the compiled Rust runner and controlled provider. The prior shared bridge cohort passes 492 TypeScript checks and 399 Rust core checks. Runner source identity, TypeScript, Rust formatting, and locked Rust typechecks pass. - Six real local development cells passed ordinary repository, conversion, and necessary-question journeys. Independent artifacts and rendered question/result evidence agree. They do not qualify staging or Slack. - Both latest automatic-repository attempts delivered correct files but failed the strict continuation check. They remain failures. A fresh replay of this queue repair is pending. - On the combined candidate `380047f4b923807a8c4f7ef6016e4fe130ab4a3a`, `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Product E2E support passes 3,525 checks with two existing skips, plus 128 source checks. The complete local `pnpm test:run` is running and is not yet a pass. - The first replay selection failed catalog validation due to an operator profile-ID error. A second selection used the wrong default-model suite and was cancelled before any provider job existed. Both setup attempts remain recorded. The corrected campaign selects the recorded GPT-6.1 and Opus 5.5 models plus the local Stop/resume journey. - Exact-head CI, review, and deployment acceptance remain pending. GitHub reports delayed PR updates and webhook delivery; the current head and checks have now propagated. No earlier-head green badge establishes acceptance of this commit. ## Risks This changes several boundaries of repository setup. Full product and deployment acceptance remain required. The queue uses the existing deferred admission and delivery contracts. Batch deduplication remains in place. The provenance repair requires the actual bound dispatch and does not grant publication authority. Current authorization is still checked at publication. No accepted provider result is rewritten, and completed provider work is not rerun to repair persistence or delivery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose its exact deployment ID or context-window size. Those values are not inferred. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6c9b87d092 |
trace(server): expose repository admission waits (#17040)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work performed by AI agents. > - The controller prepares a task workspace before it starts a provider turn. > - Repository admission also runs when a checkout already exists. > - One observed reuse took 16.877 seconds. Its child spans explained only 3.556 seconds. > - The missing detail covered repeated authority checks, catalog work, and publication waits. > - This change exposes those operations under the existing execution attempt. > - Operators can expand the slow phase before choosing a performance fix. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16963, #16330, and #16515. The provider-routing work in #17019 has a different scope. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Repository-admission traces for new and reused checkouts. **Subsystem affected** server/ orchestration and operator-configured OpenTelemetry tracing. **Current behavior** The admission span can contain a long interval without child spans. Existing project checks, HTTP requests, and checkout lookup do not explain current-task checks, database awaits, credential refresh, or publication locks. **Proposed behavior** Expose nested spans for current binding and task access, individual identity reads, catalog construction, credentials, grant transactions, filesystem validation, Git inspection, and directory-lock acquisition, work, and release. **Reason and benefit** The trace can distinguish repeated checks, remote calls, database awaits, and directory contention. A database-await span includes driver, network, pool, and server time. It is not isolated SQL execution time. **Breaking changes** None. No API, schema, permission, retry, lock, or repository behavior changes. ## What Changed - Add fixed admission phases beneath the existing execution attempt. Keep the existing project, checkout, and HTTP detail. - Trace current-task authorization stages only under workspace access. Unrelated decisions cannot consume that detail budget before admission. - Trace GitHub catalog reads, credentials, provider metadata, grant row locking and writes, transaction settlement, and webhook work. - Separate directory-lock acquisition, the protected operation, and release without changing the adapter lock contract. - Document the hierarchy and timing limits. Keep endpoint gating, span caps, and hashed run correlation. Add no span attributes or exception text. ## Verification - Nine new tests passed with real PostgreSQL, real Git, and SDK-exported spans. They cover directory contention, grant-row blocking, all three binding checks, reuse without cloning, dirty files, private-task denial, receipt repair, conflict retry, endpoint-off behavior, and parent IDs. - Twenty earlier unrelated authorization decisions do not exhaust the admission detail budget. - Existing authorization and trust suites: 105 tests passed. Existing timing/context suites: 26 tests passed. Existing repository-access tests: 6 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on commit `5a986d8c86644dfb7ee39b3b832e2d7c86532598`. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete locally. The temporary five-connection cluster returned `sorry, too many clients already` in chat fixtures, and the run was interrupted. It is not a pass. The complete standard CI workflow passed on the same commit, including all 12 server shards and all three chat shards. - Final current-head checks: 54 success, two neutral, two skipped, zero pending or failing. The [CI aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39522187940/job/118971261973) passed. [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17040#issuecomment-6305066520) and [Paperclip Review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17040#issuecomment-6305017182) both assessed this exact commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved threads. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - This macOS host exhausted its SysV semaphore quota. Database tests used a temporary command-scoped initdb preload with five connections, fewer workers, and a larger lock table. No repository test infrastructure or shared host settings changed. Initial skipped tests, focused-fixture failures, and clock-order assertion failures were corrected and rerun; they are not counted as passes. The complete local run remained connection-limited and was interrupted. - Local SDK export proves parentage and privacy. Hosted Honeycomb ingestion remains unverified until deployment. No deployment occurred. ## Risks Span recording requires an operator-configured OTLP endpoint. Each fixed detail name remains capped at 16 occurrences per attempt. Later operations still execute under their enclosing phase. Timing wrappers preserve the existing operations and their errors. No migration is required. The change does not itself reduce admission latency. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use, code execution, and delegated agents. The exact hosted model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
813e808af4 |
Remove filesystem history authorization from workspace preparation (#16963)
Remove physical-root source/reader authorization and sticky directory classifications from workspace preparation. Preserve current task/run authority, app-record privacy, credential authorization, containment, and lifecycle/publication integrity.
Validate replacement selections against persisted new inputs and refresh verified checkout ownership so bounded reuse survives earlier workspace relocation. Add real PostgreSQL/Git regressions, a reproducible history-scaling benchmark, and documentation.
Full CI passed all 48 jobs and Greptile scored 5/5 at
|