5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	fc0d390d98	fix: enforce Cloud-enabled features on every managed stack (#16953) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud sets managed feature values for each tenant stack. > - Staging lets admins change experimental features. > - The staging exception also let old tenant false values override Cloud true values. > - This could disable required features such as isolated workspaces. > - This pull request keeps every Cloud-enabled feature on and rejects attempts to disable it. > - The same rule applies to staging, production, and managed stacks without a hostname. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16876 **What happened?** The staging override added in #16876 treats managed true values as editable defaults. A stored tenant false value can disable a feature that Cloud enables. Settings writes also accept attempts to disable Cloud-enabled features. **Expected behavior** If Cloud sets a feature to true, the tenant reads true and cannot turn it off. This applies to every managed stack. Staging can still change allowed experiments that Cloud has not enabled. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set a managed staging primary hostname and enable isolated workspaces in `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`. 2. Start with `enableIsolatedWorkspaces: false` in the tenant settings row. 3. Read `/api/instance/settings/experimental`. Before this fix, staging returns false. 4. Try to PATCH that flag to false. After this fix, the API returns 403 without saving, and reads return true with managed control metadata. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `cde944ed75648adfb569e86133adc8b118b55dd6`. ## What Changed - Keep managed true values in the staging read overlay. They override old tenant values and lock the existing UI controls. - Reject attempts to set any Cloud-enabled feature to false before writing settings. - Cover every managed feature in service tests across staging, production, and an absent hostname. Add real-service HTTP tests for isolation on staging and production. - Update operator documentation and the feature and access maps. ## Verification - Confirmed the new service regression fails before the fix: staging returns stored false, and writes can attempt to disable enabled flags. - Passed all six focused settings suites: 168 tests. Passed the final route and overlay suites after adding the HTTP regression: 109 tests. - Passed existing experimental settings UI tests: 54 tests. These cover the existing managed-control behavior. - Passed `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check`. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The first typecheck used an install that did not honor locked versions and hit an unrelated `@pierre/diffs` API mismatch. Reinstalling from the lockfile resolved it; no lockfile changes are included. - Full CI passed on `f43136812a92ec838a24f0c423270e4fbd997c28`: 55 successful checks, one neutral review check, and two expected skips. This includes typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, runner checks, and E2E shards. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39411907756). - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI matrix passed. It is not counted as a completed local full-suite pass. - Greptile reviewed `f43136812a92ec838a24f0c423270e4fbd997c28`: 5/5 with no outstanding findings. The only finding on the first review was the repository rule against new code comments; those comments were removed. ## Risks - Staging users can no longer disable a feature that Cloud enables. This is the intended behavior. - Clients that send a stale full settings form containing false for a Cloud-enabled feature receive 403 and must reload. - No database migration is needed. Stored false values remain in the database, but cannot override an active Cloud true value. - Cloud-disabled staging experiments remain editable. Production restrictions and self-hosted settings remain unchanged. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository tools, and test execution. The context window size is 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>	2026-10-20 06:14:52 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d9bcf4dfe8	fix(auth): let Cloud stack admins manage experimental settings (#16907) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People use experimental settings to opt into product features. > - Cloud stack Admins can manage their company, but cannot save an experiment. > - Requiring an Owner role adds unrelated privileges to this workflow. > - This pull request gives trusted Cloud stack Admins permission to update experiments. > - Other instance administration and platform settings keep their existing checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A person with the Cloud stack Admin role receives “Instance admin access required” when they enable an experimental setting, such as Fast responses. **Expected behavior** Cloud stack Admins can save editable experimental settings. This permission does not grant general instance-admin authority. Members, Support users, and agents cannot change experiments. Cloud-managed and operator-hidden settings remain protected. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign into a Cloud staging workspace as a stack Admin. 2. Open Settings → Experimental. 3. Enable Experimental fast responses. 4. Observe the permission error instead of a saved setting. **Additional context** Related: #10343 introduced computed Owner elevation. #15748 added Fast responses and the company Connections settings page. The roadmap and existing PRs were checked. This is a small authorization fix for the existing settings path. ## What Changed - Derive experiment-management authority from the current trusted Cloud stack Admin role on each request. - Apply that authority only to the experimental settings PATCH route. Keep general settings, environment defaults, and task drain restricted to instance admins. - Preserve existing hidden-setting checks, managed feature restrictions, and activity records. - Add role and role-downgrade regressions, allowed and denied route cases, staging coverage, and updated OpenAPI and access documentation. ## Verification - Before the fix, the Admin fast-response request returned 403 and the new role assertions failed. The first sandboxed HTTP run could not bind local sockets; the regression run outside that sandbox reached the expected authorization failures. - Focused Cloud actor, settings route, managed-overlay, and health tests: 149 passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Greptile reviewed commit `7c33b90066121f03183579d2fae2650755e025e4` at 5/5. Its one style finding is fixed and resolved. - The full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass. It reported two early collection failures before workspace build outputs were ready and a 15-second timeout in the unchanged AgentMail recovery test. The run was stopped after those failures while the full CI suite continued. No full local-suite pass is claimed. - The first current-head CI attempt failed the unchanged Runner test “preserves a real listening process and its marker when a health RPC times out” with `runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable` / `process_identity_changed`. The test passes in a local isolated run. This recovery does not establish the CI failure's cause. [Failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39332989655/job/118336142261). The failed shard passed on its single rerun. The failure cause remains unconfirmed. All CI checks on commit `7c33b90066121f03183579d2fae2650755e025e4` are now green. [Final CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39332989655). - No deployed staging behavior is claimed. Manual acceptance after deployment: as a stack Admin, enable Fast responses, reload, and confirm Connections appears. Confirm Members and Support users still cannot save experiments. ## Risks - This intentionally extends experimental settings write access to Cloud stack Admins. It does not persist an instance-admin role or expand other instance controls. - Production retains its existing managed feature policy. Staging retains its editable experiment allowlist and protected execution and owner-elevation settings. - No database migration or UI change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose an 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>	2026-10-19 21:48:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c5226daf7a	fix(cloud): enable experimental toggles on staging (#16876) ... Allow instance admins to change approved experimental feature controls on managed Cloud staging. Preserve production restrictions and managed access and execution policy. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 13:04:07 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	a0651c96f8	Add database-free process liveness probes (#16101) ... Expose process liveness without database or credential queries while preserving hostname and runtime identity guards. Deep health and sleep/wake readiness checks retain their existing behavior. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:43:46 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00