3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	e200104727	feat: review connection actions from tasks (#13063) ... Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts. Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests. Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-08 19:37:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cabc9146d0	feat(apps): add secure remote MCP and PostHog setup (#12339) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools. > - Remote MCP setup needs secure endpoint validation and durable credentials. > - PostHog needs both browser sign-in and personal API key setup paths. > - This pull request adds the shared remote MCP foundation and the PostHog definition. > - The benefit is a secure and reusable base for later app connection work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 1 of 11. It replaces the first reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add guarded remote MCP setup and credential handling. - Add PostHog OAuth and API key connection methods. - Add focused server, shared contract, and UI coverage. - Keep the migration replay-safe and idempotent. - Give the late-close security regression the same 10-second CI headroom as the adjacent real-timer handshake test. - Synchronize fake-timer handshake tests at the exact ensure-session boundary so real filesystem setup cannot race the fake deadline. - Drive PTY overflow coverage only after listener registration so scheduling cannot reorder the test fixture. ## Verification - pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts (220 passed; affected cases also passed five focused stress repetitions) - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never leaks a sandbox-provided value from a late close rejection into logs or the result"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never promotes a late ensureSession resolution|closes a late-resolving real handle exactly once"` (2 passed) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation can reject configurations that previously passed without checks. - OAuth configuration errors can block setup until the operator corrects the provider settings. - The migration uses guarded statements so repeated execution is safe. - The test-only synchronization changes do not affect runtime behavior; they remove filesystem/fake-clock and listener-registration races observed under parallel CI load. > 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 (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 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 12:08:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f712cedbc2	feat(mcp) [split 7/8]: activate Apps and gateway UI (#9562) ... ## 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 7/8 and focuses on Apps/Gateways UI and feature-flagged activation > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The standalone UI foundation needs feature-flagged routes, navigation, app detail flows, gateways, Storybook scenarios, and QA configuration. - Proposed solution: Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite configuration. - 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/06-ui-tools-foundation`. - 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 Apps/Gateways flows and flag-off behavior; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite configuration. - 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` — 17 files, 147 tests passed ## Risks - Navigation or flag regressions could expose incomplete experiences; activation remains controlled by existing experimental settings. - 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>	2026-07-14 15:40:08 -05:00