2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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	3db2e6bdd2	feat(mcp) [split 8/8]: add e2e coverage and operator docs (#9563) ... ## 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 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage, operator docs, evals, and release notes > - 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 complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios, operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof before merge. - Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - 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/07-ui-apps-activation`. - 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: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration. - 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` - `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs` - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list` — 43 tests discovered - `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs 6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes) ## Risks - Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off execution. - 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 15:48:57 -05:00