3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	c67909cb0f	fix: keep tool approvals valid through OAuth refresh and delayed review (#20340) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agent work and approve app actions. > - An approval must bind the action that the person reviewed. > - OAuth access tokens can expire while that person is away. > - The old target snapshot treated each token refresh as a new authorization. It also imposed a one-hour review deadline. > - This pull request separates token renewal from authorization identity and keeps the human decision durable. > - Current access, the reviewed arguments, meaningful target changes, task closure, and execution receipts still control dispatch. > - People can approve later without repeating a decision after routine connection maintenance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pending app action returned `approved_tool_target_changed` after its OAuth tokens refreshed. The tool and connection settings were unchanged. The same card also expired after one hour. A sign-in problem could discard an accepted decision before provider dispatch. **Expected behavior** The original card remains reviewable after routine OAuth refresh and a server restart. A later approval runs the exact reviewed action once. A connection repair preserves the decision while Paperclip verifies the same authorization. Meaningful changes require a new review. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect an OAuth MCP app and configure an action to require approval. 2. Request the action, then refresh its access and refresh tokens before approving. 3. Approve the original card. Before this change, it returns HTTP 409 even when the authorization is unchanged. 4. Wait more than one hour. Before this change, the card expires without a task-specific deadline. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `76254ead2229`. The final branch is rebased onto current master. ## What Changed - Add versioned approval target comparison. New snapshots bind credential identity epochs, consent, permissions, ownership, connection configuration, tool contracts, and credential references. Authenticated OAuth refresh preserves identity. Manual credential replacement does not. - Remove the implicit one-hour deadline from ordinary app action reviews. Keep explicit deadlines and terminal-task expiry. Synchronize the nullable interaction deadline in shared contracts and UI. - Keep accepted, undispatched actions when sign-in is required. Show a saved-approval repair state. Resume on committed connection changes after target and access revalidation, without an idle retry loop. - Preserve the existing execution claim, result receipt, and uncertain-outcome no-replay rules. - Explain meaningful target changes without inviting the person to retry the stale card. - Add a production task-thread Storybook example and document compatibility and recovery behavior. ## Verification - Red: production-refresher invalid-grant handling and formal-approval withdrawal during a sign-in wait also reproduced as failing regressions before their fixes. - Red: before implementation, the local OAuth HTTP fixture failed for both public and confidential clients with `approved_tool_target_changed` after token refresh. - Green: the extended fixture passes for public and confidential clients with personal and shared grants. It covers actual local HTTP token exchanges, multiple refreshes, a rebuilt gateway, an ended originating run, approval after 25 hours, duplicate approval, preserved sharing arguments, sign-in waiting, and event-driven repair. The gateways use the production OAuth refresher; an invalid refresh preserves the accepted decision before provider dispatch. Omitted-scope responses cover equivalent scope-reporting changes. The provider is an isolated local fixture, not a deployed Notebook service. - Negative controls refuse changed consent, scopes, tool definition, destination, and manual credential replacement before provider execution. - Existing gateway service, connected-tool acceptance, secret owner, secret service, unsigned-review queue, and connection-health suites passed. Explicit-deadline fixtures still prove expiry behavior, including deadlines on accepted sign-in waits. A withdrawn formal approval cancels a waiting action before connection recovery. - Approval card, task-chat, error-copy and target-comparison tests passed. Server and UI typechecks passed. Token gates and Storybook catalog checks passed. - Inspected the new saved-approval repair card in local Storybook using the production task thread. It shows a reconnect link and no second approval button or false running state. - `pnpm verify --explain` returned exit 2 and requested broad CI coverage. [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42677855507) passed on `eb4f1c7caa9ee6e802c314ffc5eadec475a5de0c`, including build, typecheck/release registry, general and serialized tests, and all eight browser shards. - Greptile reviewed the same final head at 5/5. Both findings from the first review are fixed and their threads resolved; no open follow-ups remain. ## Risks - No database migration is needed. The new comparison reuses the vault identity epoch. Only authenticated OAuth refresh code can preserve that epoch; HTTP credential-write schemas cannot select that behavior. - Earlier signed requests keep their original exact-version checks and saved deadlines. Already-expired cards are not revived. A historical card whose credentials already changed needs a fresh review. - A new consent, account, permission set, destination, or manually replaced credential must not inherit the old authorization. Reconnection continues automatically only when revalidation proves the same saved authorization. - The interaction enrichment now permits a null deadline. Existing string deadlines remain valid. The web client and shared validator change together. - This PR does not deploy to staging or perform a live Notebook publication. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID, context-window limit, or reasoning-mode label; 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>	2026-11-09 13:46:28 -06:00
5 people	39279aa34f	feat(ui): shared error, connectivity and query foundation for disconnects (#15754) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board reads API data and keeps the current task on screen. > - A restart or temporary network failure can interrupt those reads. > - Separate page error handlers can hide cached data or expose raw server codes. > - The app needs one connection state, readable error copy and a consistent read policy. > - This change provides that foundation and moves affected read surfaces onto it. > - The dependent write layer in #17960 preserves edits and submissions across the same failures. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Temporary API failures could replace loaded content with errors. Different surfaces handled the same outage differently. Some showed raw server codes. A successful query to an unrelated service could also falsely report that Paperclip had recovered. **Expected behavior** Keep cached content visible. Show one connection banner during sustained trouble. Confirm recovery through the Paperclip health probe or its WebSocket. Retry transient reads and show readable errors for permanent failures. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a populated task or workspace page. 2. Interrupt API requests with a 503 or a dropped connection. 3. Keep an unrelated external request in flight. 4. Confirm that cached content remains and that the external result cannot clear the outage. 5. Restore the API and check that reads refresh. The write layer first merged into this feature branch in #15769 now has its own dependent PR, #17960. This PR contains the shared foundation and read changes. Merge this PR first. ## What Changed - Classify API errors and provide readable error copy, including non-JSON proxy responses and Retry-After handling. - Use one connection store and health probe with bounded backoff. Confirm recovery from the server health probe or live-updates WebSocket. - Pause reads while disconnected, retry transient errors, and refresh active reads after recovery. - Keep cached data visible through shared query views and affected page, panel and plugin read surfaces. - Add one app-level connection banner and support the pending-write count consumed by the dependent write layer. - Add a query-error rendering guard. Call it directly from the existing CI step. Update development documentation. ## Verification - Historical-chat lookup now follows the same ready/stale roster state as rendering. Three regressions fail before the fix; the six new cases pass after it, including working Retry, fresh data, no-cache error, permanent 403 and company isolation. All six focused query/recovery suites pass 200 tests. Final-commit CI passes and Apex is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Canary Dry Run initially refused a preview version that was already on npm. It passed after one rerun with fresh registry metadata; no check was disabled. - Integrated current master and retained both transcript interest registration and connectivity reporting on socket open. The seven focused recovery/query suites pass 288 tests, and UI typecheck and production build pass. All 9,451 UI tests across 799 files pass on the merge commit. Final-commit CI passes and Apex is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Current head `70d9335d732219352ef0f98414439766bbcb33df`: all hosted CI checks pass. Apex is **5/5** on that head with no unresolved findings. The branch has no merge conflict. GitHub still requires code-owner approval. - The foundation passes 9,430 UI tests in 804 files. After integrating current master page paths, 190 focused page tests pass. - Two unrelated-success regressions fail before the latest fix. With the fix, 62 focused UI tests, all six guard tests and UI TypeScript pass. - The composed foundation and write layer pass **9,505 UI tests in 808 files**, UI TypeScript, a production UI build, and query-error, token and map guards. - A real Chromium journey on the composed source injects a 503 during title save. The loaded task stays visible; one reconnect banner appears; the edit saves after recovery; another task stays unchanged; the saved title survives reload. - Full recursive local checks were not repeated because Runner compilation exhausted local disk during another repair. Hosted checks must pass before merge. No new staging deployment is claimed. - Latest review follow-up: a cached CaseDetail now survives a failed HTTP 429 refresh. Its page regression fails before the fix and passes after it. Eighty focused foundation tests, UI TypeScript, build and guards pass after that change. - Earlier CI evidence is retained: several foundation jobs received a runner shutdown signal together. The write-layer head also failed an unchanged Runner descriptor close test with `provider_transport_failed`. The same Runner source passed that suite in the foundation run. New CI runs cover the updated heads; no check or assertion was weakened. ## Risks - Shared retry defaults change the time before transient read errors appear. Permanent errors still fail promptly. - ApiError.message now contains readable copy. Callers that compare raw codes must use ApiError.code. - Cache success can come from another service or local data. It must not confirm Paperclip recovery. - Durable writes are reviewed separately in #17960. This PR does not change database or mutation contracts. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) produced the original work with tool use. OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, assisted with restoration, integration, tests and review fixes. The Codex session does not expose its exact serving model ID 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-27 21:22:07 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00